Wood v The Queen - [2001] NSWCCA 228

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Wood v Regina [2001] NSWCCA 228

FILE NUMBER(S):
60755/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12 June 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 20/06/2001

PARTIES:
Mark James Wood v Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Smart AJ Newman AJ Badgery-Parker AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/41/0274

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Twigg DCJ

COUNSEL:
(A) H Dhanji
(C) P G Berman SC

SOLICITORS:
(A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Evidence possibly unreliable - accomplice - informal admission - identification - adequacy of warnings and directions to jury - points not taken at trial - no miscarriage of justice - evidence sufficient to support conviction.
Sentencing - parity of sentences - sentence reduced.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900, s117
Evidence Act 1995, s165

DECISION:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal upheld, sentence quashed; in lieu thereof the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for two years to commence 16 November 2000 and expire on 15 November 2002 with a non-parole period of eight months expiring 15 July 2001. The appellant is to be released on parole on that latter date.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60755/00

SMART AJ
NEWMAN AJ
BADGERY-PARKER AJ
Wednesday, 20 June 2001
MARK JAMES WOOD v REGINA

JUDGMENT

1      THE COURT:     This matter involves an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence which were heard by this court on 12 June 2001.
2      At the conclusion of the appeal the court announced that the appeal against conviction would be dismissed but the application for leave to appeal would be granted and the appeal consequent upon that grant of leave was successful. A fresh sentencing order was then made which we shall refer to later in these reasons.
3 The appellant had been indicted before the District Court at Goulburn on a charge of larceny contrary to the provisions of section 117 of the Crimes Act. Following the trial, which lasted a number of days, the jury convicted the appellant of that offence. In the event, his Honour Judge Twigg QC sentenced the appellant to a head sentence of imprisonment for three years and a non-parole period of twelve months.
4      The larceny involved the theft of money from a service station at Goulburn. The Crown case was that an employee of the station, one Michael Hartley, became aware in June of 1997 that there was a large amount of money at the service station in a part of the station safe which could be accessed by staff members. The night before the theft took place, Hartley spoke to the appellant and one Craig Bain at the Flamingo nightclub in Goulburn and proposed that they steal the money from the service station. His proposal was that an artificial robbery would occur and then thereafter the proceeds would be equally divided amongst the three. The plan was that one person was to enter the service station shop while the other would…

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 Wood v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wood v The Queen [2001] NSWCCA 228
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 228
Decision Date: 20 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wood v The Queen, the respondent appealed against his conviction and sentence. The primary issue before the court was the reliability of evidence given by an accomplice and whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury about this evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge provided sufficient directions to the jury regarding the identification evidence. The appellant also argued that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were not commensurate with those of co-offenders.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to warn the jury about the possible unreliability of the accomplice's evidence. It was held that the judge's directions to the jury regarding the accomplice's evidence were sufficient, and no miscarriage of justice occurred. The court also found that the identification evidence was reliable, and the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The court further determined that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were not manifestly excessive or inadequate and did not require alteration.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. However, the sentence was reduced to parity with that of co-offenders.

Orders