R v WOODEN [2019] NSWDC 263

R v WOODEN [2019] NSWDC 263

The offence was objectively in the low end of the mid-range, despite serious wounds, use of a weapon and offending in the victim's home, because the offender's intellectual impairment reduced moral culpability. The offender's extensive violent criminal history enlivened Veen v The Queen (No. 2) and s 21A(2)(d), but the effect was substantially ameliorated by his low intellectual functioning. No sentence other than substantial imprisonment was appropriate, with a 25% discount for the early guilty plea and special circumstances to allow extended supervision and assistance on parole.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Guilty Plea in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.
Legal Topics
['wound With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'intellectual Impairment' 'criminal History as Aggravating Factor' 'form 1 Matters' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['wound With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'intellectual Impairment' 'criminal History as Aggravating Factor' 'form 1 Matters' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Guilty Plea in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, 1900.' "How the offender's intellectual impairment affected objective seriousness, moral culpability, deterrence and the operation of criminal history as an aggravating factor." "Whether the offender's prior convictions enlivened the principles in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) and s 21A(2)(d) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999." "Whether the principles in Bugmy v The Queen were enlivened by the offender's background." 'Whether special circumstances justified a longer period of parole supervision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was objectively in the low end of the mid-range, despite serious wounds, use of a weapon and offending in the victim's home, because the offender's intellectual impairment reduced moral culpability. The offender's extensive violent criminal history enlivened Veen v The Queen (No. 2) and s 21A(2)(d), but the effect was substantially ameliorated by his low intellectual functioning. No sentence other than substantial imprisonment was appropriate, with a 25% discount for the early guilty plea and special circumstances to allow extended supervision and assistance on parole.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.

Orders

  • ['In respect of the offence to which the offender pleaded guilty he is convicted.' 'Taking into account the matters on Form 1, the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years to commence on 1 November 2018 and expire on 31 October 2022.' 'Thereafter there will be a balance of term of 2 years to commence...