R v Wooller - [1998] VSCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 89 of 1998

THE QUEEN

MARTIN JOHN WOOLLER

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, A.C.J., BROOKING and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 October 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 October 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSCA 75

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Series of inhuman and damaging assaults by de facto stepfather on 11-year-old boy over two-month period - Four counts of intentionally causing serious injury and eight counts of intentionally causing injury - Total sentence of seven years two months with minimum of five years not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. C.J. Ryan	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Tyler Tipping & Woods

________________________________________________________________________________
WINNEKE, A.C.J. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

In this case the applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence imposed in the County Court at Morwell on 8 April 1998. The applicant pleaded guilty to 15 counts of various offences, all involving treatment of an inhuman and degrading kind against an eleven-year-old boy who was in the applicant's care and custody, being the child of a woman with whom the applicant was living in a de facto relationship. These offences, which occurred over a two-month period between June and August 1997, comprised four counts of intentionally causing serious injury, eight counts of intentionally causing injury, one count of recklessly causing injury, one count of threat to kill and one count of false imprisonment.
The learned judge imposed individual sentences in respect of each offence, none of which exceeded two years' imprisonment. Partial cumulation orders were made in respect of twelve of the individual sentences imposed and, as a result, the total effective sentence imposed was seven years and two months and a minimum term of five years was ordered to be served before the applicant became eligible for parole.
The primary ground of application for leave to appeal is that the sentences are manifestly excessive. In essence it is argued that the judge's discretion has miscarried in his orders for cumulation and that, as a result, he has arrived at a total effective sentence which is manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the applicant's conduct.
The relevant facts which constitute the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty are adequately set out, we think, in the sentencing remarks of the learned judge which are before this Court. They have been fully canvassed in the course of argument before us and no purpose is to be served in taking the time to rehearse them. Suffice it to say that they reveal a course of conduct which was violent, almost inhuman conduct, over a period of two months, perpetrated by the 30-year-old applicant against a defenceless and terrified eleven-year-old boy. The conduct, which is said to have been occasioned by some pre-pubescent behaviour on the part of the child, was unrelenting and left its victim not only physically scarred in his genital…

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 Wooller

Details

AGLC: R v Wooller [1998] VSCA 75
Case: [1998] VSCA 75
Decision Date: 12 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the criminal case of R v Wooller, the defendant was convicted on twelve counts of assault against an 11-year-old boy. The victim suffered multiple severe injuries over a two-month period, perpetrated by the defendant who was in a de facto relationship with the boy's mother. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly excessive. The defendant was sentenced to a total of seven years and two months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

The court was required to consider the severity and nature of the assaults, the impact on the victim, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court examined the specific circumstances of the assaults, including the frequency, duration, and the extent of the injuries inflicted. Additionally, the court weighed the need for punishment and deterrence against the rehabilitative potential of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court considered precedents and guidelines on sentencing for serious assaults, ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The severity of the assaults and the cumulative impact on the victim justified a substantial custodial sentence. The non-parole period was deemed necessary to ensure public safety and to reflect the gravity of the crimes. The court found that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of the defendant's rehabilitation. The Supreme Court of Queensland upheld the sentence, affirming that it was proportionate to the offences committed.

Orders