Woods v The King - [2024] NSWCCA 186

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woods v R [2024] NSWCCA 186
Hearing dates: 14 June 2024
Date of orders: 18 October 2024
Decision date: 18 October 2024
Before: Kirk JA at [1];
Campbell J at [2];
N Adams J at [59]
Decision:
(1) Under rule 3.5(5) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 grant the applicant leave to make his application for leave to appeal from the sentence passed on him in the District Court.
(2) Grant leave to appeal.
(3) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – application for leave to appeal – self-representation not a privilege but a disadvantage – leave not ordinarily granted merely because a party is self-represented – applicant unaware no application was made while he had legal representation – leave to appeal granted
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – State and Commonwealth offences – accumulation, concurrency and totality – whether sentencing judge erred in wholly accumulating the Commonwealth aggregate sentence on the State sentence – no obligation to import a degree of concurrency – different criminality involved – whether sentencing judge erred by not expressly referring to R v Fernando and Bugmy v The Queen – sentencing judge had regard to the applicant’s subjective case and found reduced culpability – sentence passed necessarily stern to reflect the Commonwealth Parliament’s intention – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 3A, 17
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 25D
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16AAB, 16AAC, 19, 19AJ, 19AV
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 474.22, 474.22A
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 3.5

Cases Cited:
Bisiker v R [2022] NSWCCA 110
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301; 270 A Crim R 556
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Swingler [2017] VSCA 305; 269 A Crim R 526
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30; 64 ALJR 458
Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
Xiao v The Queen (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Toby James Woods (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant (Self-represented)
A Chhabra with A Schatz (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/159612
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

13 December 2022

Before:

Coleman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/159612

HEADNOTE

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

On 13 December 2022, the applicant was sentenced in the District Court after pleading guilty to one…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Woods v The King [2024] NSWCCA 186
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 186
Decision Date: 18 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Woods, the appellant, appealing against the sentence imposed by the court. The dispute was primarily centred on the sentencing process and whether the court erred in its determination of the appropriate sentence. The matter was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the sentencing judge erred in wholly accumulating the Commonwealth aggregate sentence on the State sentence and whether the sentencing judge failed to consider relevant case law when determining the sentence. The court also needed to consider the principles of accumulation, concurrency, and totality in sentencing, as well as the appropriate level of culpability for the offence committed.

The court found that there was no obligation to import a degree of concurrency between the sentences, as the different criminality involved warranted a wholly accumulated sentence. The court also held that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's subjective case and found reduced culpability, and that the sentence passed was necessarily stern to reflect the Commonwealth Parliament's intention. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had not erred in their determination of the appropriate sentence.

No further orders were made by the court. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders