Woodrum v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 270

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Woodrum v R [2019] NSWCCA 270
Hearing dates: 30 October 2019
Date of orders: 13 November 2019
Decision date: 13 November 2019
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
Cavanagh J at [37]
Decision:
(1)   Grant Ms Woodrum leave to appeal.
(2)   Allow the appeal.
(3)   Quash the sentence imposed upon her by Wass DCJ on 6 September 2018.
(4)   In lieu thereof, sentence Ms Woodrum to a non-parole period of imprisonment of 3 years commencing on 4 August 2017 and expiring on 3 August 2020 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 3 August 2022.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentence appeal – where applicant pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of cocaine – where applicant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months – where Crown concedes sentencing judge erred – re-sentence – whether applicant tricked into importing cocaine by on-line suitor whom she had not met – whether applicant’s offending motivated by financial greed – sentence quashed – new sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.2(1)
Cases Cited: Bertilone v R (2009) 231 FLR 383; [2009] WASCA 149
Chang v R [2011] NSWCCA 182
Di Tommaso v R [2010] VSCA 178
Greentree v R [2018] NSWCCA 227
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
R v Sutton [2013] QCA 151
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Denise Marie Woodrum (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T D Anderson (Applicant)
M England (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/238233
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

6 September 2018

Before:

Wass DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/238233

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: Denise Marie Woodrum seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the sentence imposed upon her by Wass DCJ sitting in the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney on 6 September 2018. Ms Woodrum pleaded guilty on 31 January 2018 in the Local Court to importing a marketable quantity of cocaine on or about 4 August 2017, contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code 1995. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 25 years and/or 5,000 penalty units. Ms Woodrum was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 4 August 2017 and expiring on 3 February 2025 with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months expiring on 3 February 2022.
It is accepted by the Crown that her Honour sentenced Ms Woodrum upon an erroneous understanding or statement concerning the amount by which the cocaine that she imported exceeded the amount prescribed…

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 Woodrum v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Woodrum v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 270
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 270
Decision Date: 13 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woodrum, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Woodrum pleaded guilty to importing a marketable quantity of cocaine into Australia. The Supreme Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The Crown conceded that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing the sentence. The appeal centred on whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors in the case, including the appellant's role in the importation of the cocaine and the circumstances surrounding his offending.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had been adequately considered as a "primary player" or merely a "mule" in the importation of the cocaine. The court was also required to consider whether the appellant's offending was motivated by financial greed or if he had been tricked into importing the cocaine by an online suitor whom he had not met. The Crown conceded that the appellant had not been adequately considered as a "primary player" in the importation of the cocaine and that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing the sentence.

The court accepted the Crown's concession that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing the sentence. The court quashed the original sentence and imposed a new sentence of imprisonment of six years and nine months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months. The court found that the appellant had been tricked into importing the cocaine by his online suitor and that his offending was not motivated by financial greed. The court also considered the appellant's early guilty plea and his otherwise good character in imposing the new sentence.

The court's final orders were that the original sentence be quashed and that a new sentence of imprisonment of six years and nine months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months, be imposed. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the new sentence was imposed.

Orders