R v Woods (No 2) - [2018] QCA 312

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woods (No 2) [2018] QCA 312

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODS, Storm Danyon
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 277 of 2017
DC No 362 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 10 November 2017 (Clare SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2018
Written submissions received 6 September and 7 September 2018

JUDGES:

Morrison JA and North and Henry JJ

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   The sentence imposed for grievous bodily harm is set aside and instead the applicant is sentenced to four years imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding – where the conviction for unlawful wounding was quashed on appeal – where after appeal the prosecution elected not to pursue the charge of wounding – where the applicant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment for grievous bodily harm and two years for the unlawful wounding – where the prosecution contends the wounding forms part of the circumstances of the offence of grievous bodily harm – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(3)(d)

R v Baker[2012] QCA 237, cited
R v Bryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, cited
R v Campbell[2016] QCA 42, cited
R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363; [1995] QCA 329, discussed
R v Johnson[2012] QCA 141, cited
R v Johnston[2004] QCA 12, cited
R v Norris[2012] QCA 57, considered
R v Sargent[2016] QCA 32, cited
R v Woods[2018] QCA 167, referred to

COUNSEL:

J A Greggery QC for the appellant/applicant
M R Byrne QC, with M L Franklin, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Phillip Bovey and Co Solicitors for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of Henry J and the orders his Honour proposes.

NORTH J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Henry J and with the orders proposed by his Honour.

HENRY J: The applicant was convicted by a jury of doing grievous bodily harm to Mitchell Robinson and unlawfully wounding Tiffanie Hansen. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five and a half years for grievous bodily harm and two years for unlawful wounding. He appealed his convictions and applied for leave to appeal sentence. This court allowed the appeal against conviction for unlawfully wounding Ms Hansen.

The consequence of that outcome for the application for leave to appeal sentence was explained in

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Woods (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Woods (No 2) [2018] QCA 312
Case: [2018] QCA 312
Decision Date: 13 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Woods (No 2), the applicant, Woods, appealed against the sentence imposed after being convicted of doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding. The conviction for unlawful wounding was quashed on appeal, and the prosecution elected not to pursue the charge of wounding. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence for grievous bodily harm was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentence for grievous bodily harm should have taken into account the quashing of the unlawful wounding conviction. The court held that the sentence for grievous bodily harm was manifestly excessive given the absence of the unlawful wounding charge. The applicant's appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence imposed for grievous bodily harm was set aside and replaced with a four-year imprisonment term.

The court carefully considered the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. It noted that the sentence for grievous bodily harm should reflect the totality of the circumstances, including the impact of the quashed unlawful wounding conviction. The court concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the reduced scope of the offence following the appeal. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence, particularly in cases where the scope of the offence has been altered by an appeal.

The final orders of the court were to grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence, allow the appeal, set aside the original sentence for grievous bodily harm, and impose a new sentence of four years imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm conviction. This outcome reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just, taking into account all relevant legal and factual considerations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The sentence imposed for grievous bodily harm is set aside and instead the applicant is sentenced to four years imprisonment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Woods (No 2) [2018] QCA 312
PARTIES:	R v WOODS, Storm Danyon (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 277 of 2017 DC No 362 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 10 November 2017 (Clare SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	13 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2018 Written submissions received 6 September and 7 September 2018
JUDGES:	Morrison JA and North and Henry JJ
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. The sentence imposed for grievous bodily harm is set aside and instead the applicant is sentenced to four years imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted by a jury of doing grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding – where the conviction for unlawful wounding was quashed on appeal – where after appeal the prosecution elected not to pursue the charge of wounding – where the applicant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment for grievous bodily harm and two years for the unlawful wounding – where the prosecution contends the wounding forms part of the circumstances of the offence of grievous bodily harm – whether sentence manifestly excessive Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(3)(d) R v Baker[2012] QCA 237, cited R v Bryan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, cited R v Campbell[2016] QCA 42, cited R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363; [1995] QCA 329, discussed R v Johnson[2012] QCA 141, cited R v Johnston[2004] QCA 12, cited R v Norris[2012] QCA 57, considered R v Sargent[2016] QCA 32, cited R v Woods[2018] QCA 167, referred to
COUNSEL:	J A Greggery QC for the appellant/applicant M R Byrne QC, with M L Franklin, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Phillip Bovey and Co Solicitors for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent