Legal Research
Cases
Woodward v R

Woodward v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 205 3 October 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Woodward v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 205

Hearing Date(s): 12 September 2014

Decision Date: 03 October 2014

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Fullerton J at [2];
Hamill J at [3].

Decision:
(1) Application for leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal upheld.
(3) The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of two years and nine months commencing on 25 November 2013 and expiring on 24 August 2016. There will be a balance of term of one year commencing on 25 August 2016 and expiring on 24 August 2017.
(4) The applicant will be eligible for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE APPEAL - plea of guilty - plea not referred to by sentencing judge - whether plea disregarded - guideline judgment on pleas of guilty - whether discount can be inferred - dangerous driving causing death - guideline judgments - sentence manifestly excessive - applicant resentenced

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Akkawi v R; Akkawi v R [2012] NSWCCA 11
Convery v R [2014] NSWCCA 93
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383; 115 A Crim R 104
R v Whyte [2002] NSW CCA 343; 55 NSW LR 252
Rios v R [2012] NSWCCA 8
Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Tony William Woodward (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
P Coady (Applicant)
T Smith (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/61907

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Berman SC DCJ

- Date of Decision: 25 November 2013

- Court File Number(s): 2013/61907

Publication Restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Hamill J.
FULLERTON J: I agree with Hamill J.
HAMILL J: Tony William Woodward (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on him in the District Court at Newcastle by his Honour Judge Berman SC on Monday 25 November 2013. He was sentenced on his plea of guilty in relation to one count of dangerous driving occasioning death, an offence contrary to s 52A (1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Following very brief sentencing proceedings and even briefer remarks on sentence, his Honour imposed a sentence comprising a non-parole period of four and half years from 25 November 2013 expiring 24 May 2018 with a balance of term of one of a half years. The total sentence is one of six years.
The applicant relies on three grounds of appeal:
(1)The learned sentencing Judge failed to take account of the early plea of guilty.
(2)The learned sentencing…

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 [2014] NSWCCA 205
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 205
Decision Date: 03 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woodward v R, the applicant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Woodward, the applicant, had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. The primary issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentencing judge's failure to refer to the applicant's guilty plea constituted a disregard of the plea, and if so, whether this could result in the sentence being deemed manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court considered whether the discount for a guilty plea could be inferred from the guideline judgments.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge's failure to refer to the guilty plea did not mean the plea was disregarded, as it was clear from the overall context that the plea was taken into account. The court also considered that the discount for a guilty plea could be inferred from guideline judgments, even if not explicitly mentioned. The sentencing judge's failure to refer to the plea was not deemed to render the sentence manifestly excessive, as the overall sentence was within the range of what could be considered appropriate for the offence. The Court of Criminal Appeal ultimately determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for resentencing.

Orders