Wood v POLICE - [2015] SASC 109

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
WOOD v POLICE
[2015] SASC 109
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan
30 July 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - THEFT - SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - EFFECT OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT ON PRISONER
The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous counts of theft, driving offences and breach of bond. The offending occurred between June 2013 and March 2015. There were two broad groups of offending: between June and November 2013, for which three months' imprisonment was suspended, and between October 2014 and March 2015. The offending occurred after the appellant had turned 50 years of age, and she had no convictions prior to this sequence of offending. The appellant had a difficult childhood, and suffered from breakdowns of personal relationships and ill health. Further evidence of the effect of imprisonment on the appellant admitted without objection.
Held (allowing the appeal):
1 The suspended sentence of three months be brought into effect, with the period of imprisonment reduced to one month and 22 days' imprisonment to reflect time served. For the October offences, the sentence imposed by the Magistrate is affirmed and is to be served concurrently with the sentence of one month and 22 days imposed for the breach of the suspended sentence bond.
2 For the December 2014 to March 2015 offending, one sentence of six months' imprisonment is imposed, suspended upon the appellant entering a bond to be of good behaviour for three years. A condition of that bond is that the appellant be under the supervision of a community corrections officer for 12 months.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18A, s 58(2), referred to.

WOOD v POLICE
[2015] SASC 109
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

SULAN J: The appellant and defendant, Debbie Wood, pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to three counts of theft, two counts of deception and one count of attempted deception, committed on 8, 9 and 12 October 2014 (‘the October offences’), one count of driving whilst disqualified, one count of contravening a defect notice and removing that notice, committed on 31 December 2014 (‘the December offences’), two counts of theft committed on 8 January 2015 (‘the January offences’), two counts of breaching bail, committed on 23 and 25 March 2015 (‘the March offences’), and one count of theft, committed on 27 March 2015 (‘the 27 March offence’).
The offences
On 23 December 2014, the defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for 23 offences which was suspended upon her entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months. The offences mainly related to the theft of items from retailers. The offences are commonly referred to as shoplifting. The value of the goods in each case was less than $250. The offences were committed between 6 June 2013 and 30 November 2013. She was also disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for one month. Eight days later,…

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 Wood v POLICE 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: [2015] SASC 109
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wood v Police, the appellant sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the severity of the sentence, which was imposed following a conviction for theft. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and had a detrimental impact on his personal circumstances, particularly his mental health. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the effect of imprisonment on the appellant warranted a reduction.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, and whether the effect of imprisonment on the appellant's mental health was a factor that should be taken into account when considering the appeal against sentence. The appellant contended that the trial judge did not adequately consider the totality of his personal circumstances, including his mental health issues, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence had a disproportionate impact on the appellant and whether there were grounds for interference with the sentence.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the sentencing principles relevant to the case. The court noted that the appellant's mental health issues were a significant factor in his offending behaviour and that these issues needed to be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. However, the court also recognised that the offence of theft was serious and warranted a term of imprisonment. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that while the sentence was on the higher end of the scale, it was not manifestly excessive. The court also acknowledged that the effect of imprisonment on the appellant's mental health was a relevant consideration, but it did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders