Wood v R [2019] NSWCCA 309

Wood v R [2019] NSWCCA 309

The Court held that the sentencing judge erred only in failing to treat the lack of planning as mitigating and in finding gratuitous cruelty as an aggravating factor, but otherwise applied sentencing principles correctly. The applicant was resentenced in light of these errors. The appropriate sentence was determined as 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, reflecting the objective seriousness, aggravating/mitigating factors and the need for deterrence and denunciation in a domestic violence murder.

Parties
Applicant: Russell Brian Wood; Respondent Crown: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Judgment and Resentencing
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Murder, Domestic Violence, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Objective Seriousness, Conditional Liberty, Intoxication, Gratuitous Cruelty, Manifest Excess, Comparative Cases, Re Sentencing
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Murder Domestic Violence Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Objective Seriousness Conditional Liberty Intoxication +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 50 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell Brian Wood

Applicant

Regina

Respondent Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Judgment and Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing judge erred in treating prior convictions and conditional liberty as aggravating objective seriousness of the offence
  2. 2 Whether lack of planning was properly considered as mitigating
  3. 3 Whether applicant's disadvantaged background was properly treated as affecting moral culpability

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the sentencing judge erred only in failing to treat the lack of planning as mitigating and in finding gratuitous cruelty as an aggravating factor, but otherwise applied sentencing principles correctly. The applicant was resentenced in light of these errors. The appropriate sentence was determined as 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, reflecting the objective seriousness, aggravating/mitigating factors and the need for deterrence and denunciation in a domestic violence murder.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; original sentence quashed; applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
  • The appeal against sentence is allowed.