Woods v R - [2011] NZCA 573

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA428/2011
[2011] NZCA 573

BETWEEN STACEY NANCY WOODS
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 27 October 2011

Court: O'Regan P, Randerson and Harrison JJ

Counsel: E R Fairbrother for Appellant
S B Edwards for Respondent

Judgment: 10 November 2011 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

_______________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by O’Regan P)

Introduction

The appellant, Ms Woods, pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the morning on which her trial was to commence. The plea was entered after the charge she faced was reduced from murder to manslaughter. She was sentenced to four years imprisonment. She now appeals against sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

Grounds of appeal

The appeal is advanced on the principal ground that the Judge did not give a sufficient discount for the guilty plea. The other grounds are that insufficient weight was given for remorse and other personal mitigating circumstances and that the sentencing Judge, Potter J, erred in her assessment of the culpability of the appellant in the circumstances of the offending.
We will summarise the factual background and the Judge’s sentencing decision, before dealing with each of the grounds of appeal in turn.

Background facts

The following background is taken from the agreed summary of facts on the basis of which the appellant pleaded guilty.
The appellant had been in a relationship with the deceased for approximately 10 years. They had two children together. Ms Woods was aged 28 at the time, and the deceased was aged 29 years. There was a history of violence in the relationship. The couple had recently moved to Gisborne, where they had decided to make a fresh start. It was hoped that they would leave negative influences behind them in Auckland. The deceased had spent time in prison, including for assaulting the appellant.
On Friday 21 May 2010, the appellant and the deceased went to the appellant’s brother’s house. A large amount of alcohol was consumed. There was some arguing but the evening was otherwise uneventful. They drove home at around 4.30 or 5 am. The deceased was driving. The argument resumed and the deceased assaulted the appellant by punching her in the face several times. The appellant received a bloody nose and a swollen upper lip.
On arriving home, the appellant hid in the garden for a time. She then went into the bathroom and washed the blood off her face. The deceased went into the bathroom and the argument continued. He made some derogatory comments about the injuries and denied being responsible. The deceased said he would leave the appellant and return to Auckland. The two made their way to the kitchen.
The appellant grabbed a serrated knife from the top kitchen drawer. She said she had no recollection of doing so, and thought she had grabbed a screwdriver. She stabbed the deceased twice in his upper chest. One of the stab wounds penetrated the heart and was fatal.…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Woods v R [2011] NZCA 573
Case: [2011] NZCA 573
Decision Date: 10 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Woods v R, the appellant, Stacey Nancy Woods, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after initially being charged with murder. The Crown reduced the charge to manslaughter, and Woods was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Woods appealed against her sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive due to insufficient consideration of her guilty plea, remorse, and personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal examined the sentencing decision and the grounds for appeal, focusing on the discount for the guilty plea, the weight given to personal circumstances and remorse, and the assessment of the appellant’s culpability.

The court found that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the timing of the guilty plea, which was entered at the last minute, and granted a six-month discount, which the Court of Appeal deemed appropriate. Regarding the personal circumstances and remorse, the court acknowledged that a more generous discount might have been possible, but concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also upheld the sentencing judge's assessment of the appellant’s culpability, finding no error in the starting point or the overall sentencing approach. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the four-year imprisonment sentence.

Orders