Legal Research
Cases
Woodward v R

Woodward v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 44 22 March 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Woodward v R [2017] NSWCCA 44
Hearing dates: 31 October 2016
Decision date: 22 March 2017
Before: Beazley P at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Bellew J at [107]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – historical child sexual assault – rape and buggery – failure to adhere to mandatory statutory requirements concerning Form 1 documents – application of R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368 and related sentencing principles for historical offences –where maximum penalty reduced after date of offences but subsequently increased by a lesser extent prior to sentence – correct approach is to have regard to the maximum penalty at the time of the offence and at the time of sentence as opposed to arbitrary points in between – no failure to have regard to sentencing practices that applied at the time of the offences – no erroneous failure to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s age and ill-health in the exercise of the sentencing discretion – sentence not manifestly excessive where offending was ongoing and extremely serious – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 63, 79
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 4F(2)
Crimes (Child Assault) Amendment Act 1985 (NSW)
Crimes (Amendment) Act 1984 (NSW)
Crimes (Amendment) Act 1989 (NSW)
Crimes (Personal and Family Violence) Amendment Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Pt 3 Div 3, ss 19, 33, 44, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61J(1)
Crimes (Sexual Assault) Amendment Act 1981 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Interpretation Act 1897 (NSW) s 8
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 30
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Doumit v R [2011] NSWCCA 134
Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
MPB v R [2013] NSWCCA 213
PH v R [2009] NSWCCA 161
R v Brandt [2004] NSWCCA 3; 42 MVR 262
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v EGC [2005] NSWCCA 392
R v Felton [2002] NSWCCA 443; 135 A Crim R 328
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Gallagher (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 29 November 1995, unrep)
R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129; 54 NSWLR 368
R v Moon [2000] NSWCCA 534; 117 A Crim R 497
R v PJ Smith [1982] 2 NSWLR 569
R v Ronen [2006] NSWCCA 123; 161 A Crim R 300
Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 28 November 1989 at 13569
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Geoffrey Woodward (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Dr S Bogan (Applicant)
Ms B Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
O’Brien Solicitors
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File…

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 Woodward v R

Details

AGLC: Woodward v R [2017] NSWCCA 44
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 44
Decision Date: 22 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woodward v R, the appellant, Woodward, challenged the severity of a sentence imposed for historical child sexual assault, including charges of rape and buggery. The case was heard and determined by the court of appeal, with the respondent being the Crown, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Woodward's appeal against sentence centred on several issues, including the court's failure to adhere to statutory requirements concerning the preparation of Form 1 documents, the application of the principles set out in R v MJR, and the court's handling of the maximum penalties applicable to the offences at different times.

The court was required to decide whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles, particularly in relation to historical offences, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles established in R v MJR, which mandate that the maximum penalty at the time of the offence should be the primary consideration, rather than arbitrary points in between. The court also examined whether the trial judge had appropriately taken into account Woodward's age and ill-health at the time of sentencing, and whether there had been a failure to adhere to sentencing practices that applied at the time of the offences.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles and had given due consideration to the maximum penalties applicable to the offences. It was held that there was no failure to adhere to statutory requirements for the preparation of Form 1 documents, nor was there an erroneous failure to give sufficient weight to Woodward's age and ill-health. The court further concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the ongoing and extremely serious nature of the offending. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

There were no further orders made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders