WOODS -v- R [1999] WASCA 299

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 299
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:181/1999	Heard:	1 DECEMBER 1999
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J WHITE J	Delivered:	1/12/99
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
PDF Version

Parties:	MIRELLA WOODS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sentencing Appeal against sentence of 3 years' imprisonment Breach of Intensive Supervision Order imposed for robbery in company Sentencing Judge erred in taking more serious view of offence than original Judge who imposed Intensive Supervision Order Sentence reduced to 18 months
Legislation:	Criminal Code
Case References:	Thompson v R (1992) 8 WAR 387 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WOODS -v- R [1999] WASCA 299 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

PIDGEON J

WHITE J

HEARD : 1 DECEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 1 DECEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 181 of 1999 BETWEEN : MIRELLA WOODS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Appeal against sentence of 3 years' imprisonment - Breach of Intensive Supervision Order imposed for robbery in company - Sentencing Judge erred in taking more serious view of offence than original Judge who imposed Intensive Supervision Order - Sentence reduced to 18 months

Legislation:

Criminal Code

Result:

Application granted

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr N J Lemmon

Respondent : Mr S E Stone

Solicitors:

Applicant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Thompson v R (1992) 8 WAR 387

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: On 5 August 1998 in the District Court at Albany the applicant was convicted on her plea of guilty to one offence of stealing with actual violence in company. The maximum penalty for that offence under s 391, read with s 393 of the Criminal Code, is imprisonment for 20 years.

2 The circumstances were that on 13 August 1997 the applicant and a juvenile, a Ms E, after having consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol and sniffing drugs, were making their way towards the North Road in Albany with a bicycle. One of them was seen to fall off the bicycle and then to pick the bicycle up and push it toward the North Road.

3 When they got to the North Road one of the pair was seen by a man who was walking along trying to hail cars. He became concerned for the safety of the applicant and Ms E because they were wandering on the roadway in the dark. He was worried they may be hit, so in a very civic minded way, as the Judge put it, he used his mobile phone to call a taxi which duly arrived.

4 The taxi driver got out to put the bicycle in the boot, and the applicant and Ms E got in the taxi. The taxi driver saw from…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woods v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] WASCA 299
Decision Date: 1 DECEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woods v The Queen involved an appeal by the defendant against a sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed for breaching an Intensive Supervision Order, which was originally given for a robbery committed in company. The defendant, Woods, appealed the severity of the sentence on the grounds that the sentencing judge had erred in taking a more serious view of the breach than the original judge who imposed the Intensive Supervision Order. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the sentencing judge's assessment of the seriousness of the breach of the Intensive Supervision Order was appropriate, and whether this assessment was commensurate with the original sentencing context. The court was required to determine if the sentence imposed was disproportionate and whether the sentencing principles and discretion were properly applied.

The court considered the circumstances of the breach and the original sentencing context, ultimately finding that the sentencing judge had indeed taken a more severe view of the breach than was warranted. The appellate court noted that the original Intensive Supervision Order reflected a less severe assessment of the original robbery offence, and the breach did not merit such a significant escalation in penalty. Consequently, the court decided that the sentence should be reduced. The appeal was granted, and the sentence was reduced to 18 months' imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.