Regina v Martin Wood - [2000] NSWCCA 155

CITATION: Regina v Martin WOOD [2000] NSWCCA 155

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60469/99

HEARING DATE(S): 3rd May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Martin Wood

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 29; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 94/21/1049

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Rummery DCJ

COUNSEL : H K Dhanji - Applicant
P G Berman - Crown
M O'Brien - Commissioner for Corrective Services

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence appeal - cancellation of periodic detention - detainee not present when cancellation order made - desirability of only one party representing the Crown.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act 1981, s 26(1A), s 27(4)

CASES CITED:
Wilson (1997) 93 A Crim R 301
Webster (1997) 100 A Crim R 26
Biddle (CCA, unreported, 6 March 1997)
Lloyd (Terry) (CCA, unreported, 17 June 1997)

DECISION: See paragraph 28

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60469/99

HULME J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Wednesday 3 May 2000

REGINA v Martin WOOD.
JUDGMENT
1 CARRUTHERS AJ: The applicant, Martin Wood, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Rummery QC at the Penrith District Court on 20 October 1995 following the cancellation by his Honour of a periodic detention order made by Judge Graham at the Parramatta District Court on 30 June 1994. 2 The brief history of the matter is as follows. The applicant was born on 25 May 1969 and has a history of addiction to alcohol dating back, it is said, to about 12 years of age. Later, there is history of an addiction to drugs. He does appear, however, to have come from a good home, and his family is still supportive of him. Prior to 15 January 1994, which is the date of the subject offence, the applicant had been before Local Courts and Children's Courts on four occasions. In 1993, he served a period of six months periodic detention for stealing from the person. 3 On 15 January 1994, he was employed at the Shell Service Station at Lethbridge Park. On that date, in company with one Robert John May, he robbed another employee of $21,620, the property of the service station proprietor. At the time, the co-offender was armed, to the knowledge of the applicant, with a long knife which was used to terrify and subdue Mr May, who was thereupon tied to the door handle of a room in the service station. 4 Working together, the two men, aided by the applicant's knowledge of the security system within the service station, removed the stolen money from the safe. 5 The applicant was charged with robbery in company, under s.97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years penal servitude. 6 As indicated, the applicant was sentenced by Judge Graham at Parramatta District Court on 30 June 1994. His Honour took into account the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Martin Wood and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWCCA 155
Decision Date: 3 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Martin Wood was heard in the High Court of Australia. Martin Wood, the appellant, was appealing a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The sentence involved a cancellation of periodic detention, a form of intermittent imprisonment, which was not carried out because the detainee was not present when the cancellation order was made. The appeal centred on whether the cancellation was valid given the absence of the detainee.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: whether the absence of the detainee during the cancellation of periodic detention rendered the cancellation order ineffective, and whether it was appropriate for only one party to represent the Crown in the appeal. The court had to determine the procedural correctness of the cancellation order and consider the implications of the representation of the Crown by a single party.

The court held that the absence of the detainee did not invalidate the cancellation of the periodic detention order. It was determined that the order was valid and enforceable as it was issued by the appropriate authority. Furthermore, the court found that it was acceptable for the Crown to be represented by a single party in the appeal, as it did not prejudice the appellant's rights. The court emphasised the desirability of having only one party represent the Crown, to avoid any confusion or potential conflict of interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision confirmed the validity of the cancellation order and the appropriateness of the Crown's representation by a single party. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural aspects of sentence appeals and the representation of the Crown in criminal matters.

Orders