Legal Research
Cases
Woodland v The King

Woodland v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 216 30 August 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Woodland v R [2023] NSWCCA 216
Hearing dates: 21 August 2023
Date of orders: 30 August 2023
Decision date: 30 August 2023
Before: Beech Jones CJ at CL at [1];
Dhanji J at [5]; and
Chen J at [77].
Decision:
(1)   Appeal allowed.
(2)   The sentence imposed in the Drug Court on 5 May 2023 is quashed.
(3)   The appellant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 14 months with a non-parole period of 9 months to date from 11 December 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 10 September 2023. The total term is due to expire on 10 February 2024.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence imposed in the Drug Court – whether early pleas of guilty taken into account – whether irrelevant consideration taken into account when assessing objective seriousness – appeal allowed – appellant resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Borri v R [2023] NSWCCA 166
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338; [2016] NSWCCA 37
Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; (2012) 86 ALJR 1086
Edwards v R [2017] NSWCCA 160
Histollo Pty Ltd v Director-General of National Parks & Wildlife Service (1998) 45 NSWLR 661
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lee, Matthew v R [2016] NSWCCA 146
Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Towney v R [2022] NSWCCA 289
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57; (2005) 79 ALJR 1816
Zeiser v R [2020] NSWCCA 154

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mary Lee Woodland (Appellant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Howell (Appellant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/149570
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Drug Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 January 2023

Before:

Senior Judge Mottley; Judge Guy

File Number(s):

2022/00000251

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant, Mary Lee Woodland, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the Drug Court for an offence of take and drive a conveyance without consent and two offences of drive motor vehicle while disqualified. The appellant received an initial aggregate sentence of 1 year and 9 months imprisonment, which was suspended to enable her to participate in the Drug Court program. The appellant’s program was terminated as a result of repeated non-compliance, and the appellant appeared for her final sentence, where…

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 Woodland v The King

Details

AGLC: Woodland v The King [2023] NSWCCA 216
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date: 30 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court, Woodland appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the Drug Court. Woodland had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and was sentenced to imprisonment. He argued that the court had failed to adequately consider his early guilty pleas and had taken into account irrelevant factors in determining the objective seriousness of his crimes. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the lower court's failure to properly weigh these factors constituted a significant error in the sentencing process.

The Court examined the sentencing principles and the duty of the lower court to consider all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. It found that the lower court had indeed failed to adequately consider the appellant's early guilty pleas, which are generally regarded as a significant mitigating factor. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower court had taken into account irrelevant considerations, which skewed the assessment of the objective seriousness of the crime. As a result, the Court concluded that the lower court's sentence was significantly flawed and ordered a resentencing by a different judge.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence. It directed that the appellant be resentenced by a different judge of the Drug Court, ensuring that all relevant factors, including the early guilty pleas, were properly considered. This decision underscored the importance of a fair and balanced approach to sentencing, particularly in the context of drug-related offences. The Court's ruling provided clear guidance on the proper application of sentencing principles and the need for thorough consideration of all mitigating factors.

Orders