The Queen v Woodley

Case [2020] NSWDC 664

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Queen v Woodley [2020] NSWDC 664
Hearing dates: 15 September 2020; 27 August 2020; 14 August 2020; 5 August 2020; 3 August 2020
Date of orders: 15 September 2020
Decision date: 15 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence. Decision at [82] – [87]

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing – supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis

Legislation Cited:

Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW ss 3A, 5

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 NSW s 25A

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 27

Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246

Regina v Parente [2017] NSWCCA 284

Robertson v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 205

Texts Cited:

None

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
Russell John Woodley (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
J O’Sullivan (Offender)

Solicitors:
S Allan (ODPP)
B Quinn (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/277570
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. Russell John Woodley, hereafter referred to as ‘the Offender’ appears before the Court today for sentence, having pleaded guilty to the charges set out on the Crown Sentence Summary, marked Exhibit A. Those charges were 3 charges of supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis, being sequences 37, 38 and 39 of the relevant charge number. Attaching to sequence 37, by way of Form 1 documents, are additional sequences 6 and 13, 16 and 23. Attaching to sequence 39, by way of a Form 1 document, are sequences 32, 33, 41 and 42.

  2. In relation to the matter charged, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 3,500 penalty units. The relevant provision of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 is s 25A. I observe here that the maximum penalty previously indicated provides a guidepost as to the seriousness with which the parliament and the community consider offences of this nature. It is a more serious form of drug supply than the other charge as it represents supply on an ongoing basis.

  3. The offending took place between 31 May 2019 and 5 September 2019. I should note that the Offender was born on 15 November 1973, making him 46 years of age. Prior to being incarcerated, he was the primary carer for his father, and I will return to that shortly.

  4. The Offender was arrested on 5 September 2019 and charged on the same day. He was committed for sentence from Wyong Local Court on 21 April 2020. He pleaded guilty at an early stage, which will be reflected in the discount on sentence.

  5. The calculation of time spent in custody referable to these charges is complicated by reason of another matter. That is, on 8 October 2019 after being arrested in respect of these matters, an ICO, which he was serving for supplying prohibited drug, and two counts of possessing prohibited drug, was revoked. He was then ordered to serve a fixed term of 6 months 1 week, 6 days, which expired 17 March 2020.

  6. From 17 March 2020 to today…

Continue reading The Queen v Woodley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Woodley [2020] NSWDC 664
Case
[2020] NSWDC 664
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Woodley, the defendant was found guilty of supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis. The case was heard by the court of criminal appeal in Queensland. The prosecution argued that the defendant had been involved in the large-scale supply of a controlled substance, leading to significant harm within the community. The appeal was focused on the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence handed down by the lower court was appropriate in the circumstances. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The court began its analysis by examining the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal conduct. It found that the defendant had been involved in a significant drug supply operation, which had caused considerable harm to the community. The court also took into account the defendant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences. After considering all the relevant factors, the court concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate. The court found that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. The decision was made at [82] – [87].

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's appeal against sentence was allowed. The court ordered that the defendant be re-sentenced to a full-time custodial sentence, with the specifics of the sentence to be determined by the lower court. The court also noted that the defendant's previous sentences should be taken into account when determining the appropriate term of imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. Decision at [82] – [87]

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.