Regina v Wood - [2005] NSWCCA 159

CITATION:
REGINA v. WOOD [2005] NSWCCA 159

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 1 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

28 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Howie J at 2; Hall J at 7

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed in part. The order of Knight, DCJ. be quashed insofar as the term of imprisonment was expressed to commence on 16 July 2005 and to expire on 11 January 2006. In lieu of the order made by Knight, DCJ., order that the fixed term of imprisonment of five months and 27 days to commence on 3 February 2005 and to expire on 29 July 2005.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - appeal against sentence - taking into account period of pre-sentence custody - s.47 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - involvement in planning of the offence - s.21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - principle in De Simoni - principle of totality

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588
Newman & Simpson (2004) 145 A. Crim. R. 148
De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 683

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
WOOD, Colin Barry

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3302

COUNSEL:
Crown: P. Barrett
Applicant: B. Rigg

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S. Kavanagh
Applicant: S.E. O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/21/1109

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Knight, DCJ.

2004/3302

GROVE, J.
HOWIE, J.
HALL, J.
THURSDAY 28 APRIL 2005

REGINA v. COLIN BARRY WOOD

Judgment

1 GROVE, J: I agree with Hall, J.

2 HOWIE, J: The relevant facts are set out in the judgment of Hall J. The period served by the applicant solely referrable to the drug offences dealt with by Judge Morgan was between 19 September 2001 and 15 February 2002, a period of four months and 27 days. The period served that was solely referable to the offence for which Judge Knight sentenced the applicant was between 13 January 2003 and 26 June 2003, a period of five months and 14 days. Judge Morgan sentenced the applicant on 27 June 2003.

3 Her Honour had two methods of taking into account the period served by the applicant that was referable to the drug offences when sentencing him for those matters: she could have deducted the time served from the sentences she was imposing and dated the sentences from the date of their imposition, that is 27 June 2003 or, alternatively, she could have backdated the sentences to commence at a date anterior to the imposition of the sentences being a period that was equivalent to the period already served. Her Honour chose the latter of those methods. However, when backdated, the sentences for the drug offences were then taken as being served during the period for which the applicant was in custody for the offence for which Judge Knight ultimately sentenced him.

4 Had Judge Morgan taken the alternative course of deducting the period served by the applicant for the drug offences from the sentence she was imposing, the sentence would have commenced on 27 June…

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 Regina v Wood

Details

AGLC: Regina v Wood [2005] NSWCCA 159
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 159
Decision Date: 28 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Regina v Wood involved the defendant, Wood, who had been sentenced by the District Court of New South Wales for his role in a significant crime. The appeal focused on the sentence imposed, specifically concerning the consideration of the period of pre-sentence custody and the application of sections 47 and 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The defendant argued that the sentence was excessive given the time he had already spent in custody before his trial, and that his involvement in the planning of the crime was not adequately considered in the original sentencing.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the statutory provisions and principles in determining the sentence, particularly in relation to the time spent in pre-sentence custody and the defendant's level of involvement in planning the crime. The court was tasked with reviewing whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the principles of totality and the specific statutory directions, as well as the precedent set by the case of De Simoni.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the statutory provisions under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which require courts to take into account the period of pre-sentence custody when determining the overall sentence. The court also examined the principle of totality, which ensures that the cumulative effect of multiple sentences is considered. The court further assessed the application of section 21A, which pertains to the consideration of the offender's involvement in the planning of the offence. After careful analysis, the court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence, taking into account all relevant factors and statutory requirements. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the original sentence.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders