Woods v The State of Western Australia

Woods was convicted on pleas of guilty of 13 counts in an indictment, comprising eight offences of aggravated burglary, two offences of burglary of a dwelling, one offence of attempted aggravated burglary, one offence of aggravated robbery and one offence of aggravated armed robbery. The appellant was aged 21 at the time of the offending and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The appellant brought an appeal against sentence, arguing that the total effective sentence infringed the first limb of the totality principle. Additionally, the appellant was convicted of 77 offences that were committed contemporaneously with the commission of the 13 counts. The appellant was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for the 77 offences after being sentenced in the Supreme Court for the 13 counts. The custodial sentences for the 77 offences were ordered to be served concurrently with the total effective sentence for the 13 counts. No appeal was brought by the State or the appellant in respect of the magistrate's sentencing decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the total effective sentence for the 13 counts infringed the first limb of the totality principle and whether the magistrate's sentencing decision was a matter relevant to the sentence for the 13 counts. The court examined the proper construction and application of s 41(4)(a) read with s 31(3) and s 31(4)(a) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA). The court found that the magistrate's sentencing decision was not a matter relevant to the sentence for the 13 counts within s 41(4)(a) of the Act. The court found that the totality principle was not infringed by the total effective sentence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court held that the magistrate's sentencing decision was not a matter relevant to the sentence for the 13 counts within s 41(4)(a) of the Act. The court held that the totality principle was not infringed by the total effective sentence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment was upheld.