Woods v R [2024] NSWCCA 186

Woods v R [2024] NSWCCA 186

The Court held leave to appeal should be granted due to the applicant’s justifiable lack of awareness that his position was not protected while exploring legal aid. The sentencing judge properly recognised the statutory complexity, was not obliged to impose concurrency between State and Commonwealth sentences, and was entitled to wholly accumulate the Commonwealth sentence on the State sentence. Mitigatory circumstances were properly considered; it was not necessary to expressly refer to Fernando or Bugmy when their substance was considered. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Toby James Woods; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentencing Appeal After Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Cumulation and Concurrency, Sentencing for State and Commonwealth Offences, Mitigatory Considerations, Application of Totality Principle
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Cumulation and Concurrency Sentencing for State and Commonwealth Offences Mitigatory Considerations Application of Totality Principle

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toby James Woods

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Sentencing Appeal After Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted out of time under r 3.5(5) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred in wholly accumulating Commonwealth aggregate sentence on the State sentence
  3. 3 Whether sentencing judge failed to apply mitigatory principles derived from R v Fernando and Bugmy v The Queen

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held leave to appeal should be granted due to the applicant’s justifiable lack of awareness that his position was not protected while exploring legal aid. The sentencing judge properly recognised the statutory complexity, was not obliged to impose concurrency between State and Commonwealth sentences, and was entitled to wholly accumulate the Commonwealth sentence on the State sentence. Mitigatory circumstances were properly considered; it was not necessary to expressly refer to Fernando or Bugmy when their substance was considered. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Grant the applicant leave to make the application for leave to appeal out of time under rule 3.5(5) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021
  • Grant leave to appeal