Legal Research
Cases
Woods v R

Woods v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 219 28 August 2020

Sentencing

Appeal

Accumulation of Sentences

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woods v R [2020] NSWCCA 219
Hearing dates: 22 July 2020
Date of orders: 28 August 2020
Decision date: 28 August 2020
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Garling J at [2];
Wright J at [3]
Decision:
(1) The applicant has leave to appeal.
(2) The appeal is allowed.
(3) The sentences imposed by the District Court on 17 June 2019 are quashed.
(4) The applicant is sentenced as follows:
(a) for sequences 1 and 20, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 6 years commencing on 27 July 2017 and expiring on 26 July 2023 with a non-parole period of 4 years expiring on 26 July 2021; and
(b) for sequences 12 (taking into account sequence 11 on a Form 1), 22 and 26, an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 4 years 6 months commencing on 27 April 2019 and expiring on 26 October 2023 with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months expiring on 26 October 2021.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Multiple federal and state offences – Finding of special circumstances in relation to the aggregate sentence for the state offences – Accumulation of federal and state sentences – Whether finding of special circumstances given practical effect in the sentence structure after accumulation – Appeal against sentences allowed and sentences quashed – Applicant resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18
Caristo v R [2011] NSWCCA 7
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301; (2017) 270 A Crim R 556
DL v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32
Fina’i v R [2006] NSWCCA 134
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Maglis v R [2010] NSWCCA 247
MD v R [2015] NSWCCA 37
Putland v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 174; [2004] HCA 8
R v LWP [2003] NSWCCA 215
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Woods (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Chhabra (Applicant)
D Beaufils (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hanna Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/00229228
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2019] NSWDC 401

Date of Decision:

17 June 2019

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/00229228

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Wright J and with his reasons.
GARLING J: I agree with the orders proposed by Wright J and with his reasons.
WRIGHT J: The applicant, Christopher Woods, seeks leave, under s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), to appeal against the sentences imposed on him by…

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 Woods v R

Details

AGLC: Woods v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 219
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 219
Decision Date: 28 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Woods against his sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland involved multiple federal and state offences. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to consider the appropriateness of the sentences imposed, particularly in relation to the finding of special circumstances in the aggregate sentence for the state offences and the accumulation of federal and state sentences. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the special circumstances identified were given practical effect in the sentence structure after the accumulation of the federal and state sentences. The Court was also required to assess if the sentences were proportionate to the crimes committed and if the aggregate sentence was just and appropriate under the circumstances.

The Court found that the trial judge had failed to give proper practical effect to the finding of special circumstances in the sentence structure after accumulation. The Court held that the special circumstances warranted a significant discount on the aggregate sentence for the state offences, which was not reflected in the final sentence imposed. The Court also found that the sentences imposed were excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed. The Court quashed the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for resentencing. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the finding of special circumstances is given practical effect in the sentence structure and that the sentences imposed are proportionate to the crimes committed.

The High Court's decision in Woods v R highlights the importance of ensuring that findings of special circumstances are given practical effect in the sentence structure and that the sentences imposed are proportionate to the crimes committed. The Court's decision also emphasises the need for consistency in the application of sentencing principles across different jurisdictions and the importance of ensuring that the aggregate sentence is just and appropriate under the circumstances. The Court's decision in this case will have significant implications for the sentencing of individuals who commit multiple federal and state offences and will ensure that the sentencing process is fair, just, and proportionate.

Orders