Legal Research
Cases
Woods v The Queen

Woods v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 259 13 November 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0004

KATHRYN JOY WOODS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, KAYE and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 October 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 November 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 259
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VCC 2131 (Judge Trapnell)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Inconsistent verdicts – 14 charges of sexual offences against one complainant – Verdicts of guilty on 2 charges – Verdicts of acquittal on 12 charges – Whether inconsistency of verdicts – Rational basis for differential verdicts – Leave to appeal refused – MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 and MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 applied.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Indecent assault, gross indecency – Sentenced to 2 years community correction order with condition for supervision – Whether manifestly excessive – Serious offending – Applicant in position of trust – High moral culpability – No insight into offending – Sentence within range – Leave to appeal refused – Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Mandy SC	Gordon Legal
For the Respondent	Mr J C J McWilliams	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P

KAYE JA
NIALL JA:

The applicant was charged on indictment with fourteen sexual offences. They comprised one charge of sexual penetration with a person who was above the age of 10 years but under the age of 16 years; six charges of gross indecency with a person under the age of 16 years; and seven charges of indecent assault of a person under the age of 16 years. The jury, empanelled on her trial in the County Court, convicted the applicant of one charge of indecent assault (charge 6) and one charge of gross indecency (charge 7), but acquitted her of each of the other 12 charges.

The applicant was sentenced to serve a community correction order for two years. The judge attached to the order conditions requiring 200 hours unpaid community work (with the hours of treatment to be counted as unpaid community work), treatment and rehabilitation as directed, participation in courses that addressed the factors relating to her offending conduct, and supervision.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal her convictions on charges 6 and 7 on the ground that they are unsafe and unsatisfactory, in that they are unreasonably inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal on the other 12 charges. She also seeks leave to appeal the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

Background

Each of the charges concerned a single complainant, AB,[1] who was born on 23 July 1970. The applicant was born on 4 September 1959. The offending was alleged to have been committed between January 1984 and July 1985. The two offences, on which the applicant was convicted, were alleged to have been committed between 26 December 1984 and 30 January 1985, when AB…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Woods v The Queen [2019] VSCA 259
Case: [2019] VSCA 259
Decision Date: 13 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woods versus The Queen, the appellant, Woods, sought to appeal his conviction and sentence following a trial where he was found guilty on two counts of sexual offences against one complainant, but acquitted on the remaining twelve charges. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Woods contended that the verdicts were inconsistent and that there was no rational basis for the differential verdicts. Furthermore, he argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences, his position of trust, and his demonstrated lack of insight into his offending.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent and whether there was a rational basis for the differing outcomes on the various charges. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court examined relevant case law, including MacKenzie v The Queen and MFA v The Queen, to assess the consistency of the verdicts, and Clarkson v The Queen to evaluate the sentence.

The court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as there was a rational basis for the differential verdicts based on the evidence presented. The jury was entitled to consider the varying degrees of proof required for each offence and the specific circumstances of each charge. Regarding the sentence, the court held that the sentence of two years with a community correction order and supervision was within the appropriate range, considering the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the offending and took into account Woods' position of trust and the lack of insight demonstrated.

The High Court of Australia refused Woods leave to appeal both his conviction and sentence.

Orders