Citation: R v Craig Andrew Woodley [2013] NSWDC 14
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 26 February 2013
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 40-year-old man, met a 15-year-old girl and her mother at a restaurant in Sydney in July 2009. He cultivated a relationship with the victim and her mother over subsequent months by falsely claiming connections to the music industry, and eventually persuaded the mother to allow the girl to travel unaccompanied to Sydney, ostensibly to meet influential contacts who could assist her singing career.
When the victim arrived at Sydney Airport in late October 2009, the offender collected her himself rather than the people she had been told would meet her. Over the following days, he exposed her to pornographic material stored throughout his home, provided her with amphetamines, and committed an act of indecency by exposing himself to her while she slept at his residence.
A jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts on 26 October 2012. The judgment before the District Court concerned the sentencing of the offender on those counts.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for a conviction of committing an act of indecency towards a child under 16 in circumstances of aggravation, under s 61O(1) of the Crimes Act 1900?
- What sentences were appropriate for two counts of grooming a child under 16, under s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, by exposing her to indecent material and by providing her with an intoxicating substance (amphetamines), each with the intention of facilitating unlawful sexual activity?
- How should the sentences be structured, including whether partial accumulation was warranted and whether special circumstances existed to justify a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
Decision
The court found the offending to be serious and predatory in nature. The offender had deliberately targeted a vulnerable 15-year-old girl who harboured ambitions in the performing arts, constructed an elaborate false persona involving fictitious characters, and used deception to isolate her from her mother and family. The conduct involved careful planning and manipulation over an extended period.
On Count 1, the act of indecency (exposing himself to the sleeping victim), the court imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. This sentence ran concurrently with the sentence for Count 2. The court treated this as the least serious of the three counts but noted that it occurred in circumstances of aggravation, as the victim was under the authority of the offender at the time.
On Counts 2 and 3, the grooming offences under s 66EB(3), the court imposed terms of 2 years imprisonment for Count 2 and a head sentence of 3 years and 4 months (with a non-parole period of 2 years) for Count 3. The sentences for Counts 2 and 3 were partially accumulated to reflect the totality of the criminal conduct while avoiding a crushing sentence. The court applied the principle from Pearce v The Queen in considering how concurrent and cumulative sentences should interact.
The court found special circumstances warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio under s 44(2). The offender had spent an extended period in custody prior to sentencing, would require counselling and assistance in transitioning back to community life following release, and had expressed willingness to undergo rehabilitative treatment. The court recommended placement in a Custody Based Intensive Treatment Program for sexual offenders.
Orders Made
- Count 1 (Act of indecency, s 61O(1)): Convicted. Sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, commencing 26 October 2012 and expiring 25 April 2013.
- Count 2 (Grooming by exposure to indecent material, s 66EB(3)): Convicted. Sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, commencing 26 October 2012 and expiring 25 October 2014.
- Count 3 (Grooming by providing amphetamines, s 66EB(3)): Convicted. Sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 26 April 2013 and expiring 25 April 2015, with a balance of sentence of 1 year and 4 months expiring 25 August 2016. Total sentence: 3 years and 4 months.
- Recommendation that the offender be placed in a Custody Based Intensive Treatment Program for sexual offenders while serving his sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court treated child grooming offences under s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 as serious criminal conduct warranting significant custodial sentences, particularly where the offending involved deliberate and sustained deception of both the child and her parent.
- Partial accumulation of sentences, rather than full concurrency or full accumulation, may be appropriate where multiple distinct offences form part of a connected course of predatory conduct, so that the total sentence reflects the overall criminality without being disproportionate.
- Special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 can arise from a combination of factors, including an extended period in pre-sentence custody, the need for post-release supervision and counselling, and the necessity of adjusting sentence ratios to reflect partial accumulation.
- Under s 66EB(3), the gravamen of the grooming offences is the offender's intention to facilitate unlawful sexual activity with the child, even where that ultimate purpose was not carried into effect.
- A suppression order prohibiting identification of the victim was made at the commencement of the trial pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900, and that order continued to operate.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61O(1), 66EB(3), 578A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44
- Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases:
- R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
- R (Cth) v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157
- Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120