Legal Research
Cases
Woodgate v R

Woodgate v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 137 7 May 2009

Special Circumstances

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 195 A Crim R 219

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Woodgate v R [2009] NSWCCA 137

HEARING DATE(S): 27 April 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Buddin J at 54; RA Hulme J at 55

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Supply large commercial quantity MDMA - Rejection by judge of submissions and opinion of psychologist - No error demonstrated - Maximum penalty of life imprisonment - Fourteen years (ten years non-parole) - Standard non-parole period fifteen years - Sentence not manifestly excessive - Parity - Co-offender charged with offence involving vastly lesser quantity - R v Kerr [2003] NSWCCA 234 doubted - Intervention by appellate court not attracted - Special circumstances - No miscarriage of discretion in assessing proportion between non-parole period and total sentence

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Holden v R [2008] NSWCCA 100
Kauwenberghs v R [2008] NSWCCA 98
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
McGuiness v R [2008] NSWCCA 80
Mirza v R [2007] NSWCCA 248
Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
Pham v R [2009] NSWCCA 25
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Delfino [2008] NSWCCA 18
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
R v Formosa [2005] NSWCCA 363
R v Kerr [2003] NSWCCA 234
R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174
R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Stankovic [2006] NSWCCA 229
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Spinks v R [2007] NSWCCA 52
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Yassine v R [2008] NSWCCA 139
Yin v R [2007] NSWCCA 350

PARTIES: Rees WOODGATE - Applicant
REGINA - Respondent/Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/13278

COUNSEL: B Stratton QC with N Carroll - Applicant
P M Miller - Respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: George Sten & Co - Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent/Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0554

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Charteris DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 October 2008

CCA 2007/13278

GROVE J
BUDDIN J
RA HULME J
7 May 2009

Rees WOODGATE v R

Judgment

1 GROVE J: On 16 November 2007 the applicant pleaded guilty to a count in an indictment charging the supply of a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA) commonly called ecstasy. The legislated maximum penalty for that offence includes imprisonment for life. The sentencing judge (Charteris DCJ) was asked to take into account, pursuant to the Form 1 procedure, a conceded offence of goods in custody reasonably suspected of having been unlawfully obtained. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 10 years with a balance term of 4 years. A…

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 Woodgate v R

Details

AGLC: Woodgate v R [2009] NSWCCA 137
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 137
Decision Date: 7 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woodgate was charged with the supply of a large commercial quantity of MDMA. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submissions and opinion of a psychologist regarding the sentence imposed on Woodgate, which was the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, fourteen years with a non-parole period of ten years. The standard non-parole period for such an offence was fifteen years.

The appeal court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was a miscarriage of discretion in the trial judge's assessment of the proportion between the non-parole period and the total sentence. The court also examined the question of parity with co-offenders, one of whom was charged with an offence involving a vastly lesser quantity of the drug. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the psychologist's opinion, and no error was demonstrated in the sentence. The court also found that Woodgate's sentence was not manifestly excessive and there was no miscarriage of discretion in the assessment of the proportion between the non-parole period and the total sentence. The court noted that intervention by the appellate court was not attracted by the special circumstances and that there was no miscarriage of discretion in the trial judge's assessment of parity with co-offenders.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders