AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 12 October 2026

Woods v R

[2026] NSWCCA 160

Assault & violenceHomicideFirearms & weapons
CRIME APPEALS APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION MURDER WHETHER VIABLE BASIS FOR MANSLAUGHTER WHERE VIABLE BASIS FOUND

Citation: Woods v R [2026] NSWCCA 160
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 12 October 2026
Judge(s): Stern JA; Hamill and Dhanji JJ

Background

The appellant was convicted of murder following a lengthy 2023 trial arising from the fatal shooting of the president of a motorcycle club chapter in the early hours of 14 January 2020. The deceased was shot once in the head with a shotgun while asleep in bed at his home. The appellant, president of a social club called the Grudge Bringers, was not present at the scene but was alleged by the Crown to have been one of the central driving forces behind the killing.

The Crown ran two cases before the jury. Its primary case was that the appellant participated in a joint criminal enterprise with co-accused to shoot the deceased with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Its alternative case was an extended joint criminal enterprise: a plan to assault or intimidate the deceased, in which the appellant foresaw the possibility that the deceased would be shot and killed with murderous intent. The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 28 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law by never directing the jury that manslaughter was available as an alternative verdict. Notably, defence counsel at trial had not sought such a direction. The Crown conceded that if a viable basis for manslaughter existed, the failure to direct constituted a wrong decision on a question of law.

Legal Issues

  • Whether there was a viable evidentiary basis for the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, rather than murder, on the extended joint criminal enterprise case
  • Whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to direct the jury on that alternative verdict, notwithstanding that defence counsel did not seek the direction at trial
  • Whether the failure to give that direction caused the appellant to lose a real chance of acquittal on the murder charge, thereby warranting leave to appeal
  • Whether there was any evidentiary foundation for a direction on manslaughter by excessive self-defence under section 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Decision

Ground 1: Failure to direct on manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act

The Court found that a viable basis for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act did exist on the evidence (at [74]). The unlawful and dangerous act in question was the discharge of a firearm, or the dangerous thrusting of a loaded firearm towards the deceased, in the course of a plan to assault or intimidate him (at [54], [58]). The Court reasoned that, on the Crown's own alternative (extended joint criminal enterprise) case, the jury was required to find only that the appellant foresaw the possibility of an act of that general nature occurring. It remained open to the jury to find that the appellant foresaw such an act but did not foresee it being carried out with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (at [74]).

Several strands of evidence bore on this conclusion. The appellant's own accounts, given voluntarily to police and Corrective Services, described a plan only to scare or assault the deceased, not to shoot him (at [73]). Evidence suggested the appellant appeared shocked when told by a co-accused that "it was done" upon their return (at [37]-[38]). The Crown's extended joint criminal enterprise case necessarily involved rejecting the evidence of key witnesses who said the appellant had directed the men to "leave no witnesses," since that instruction was inconsistent with a plan merely to assault or intimidate (at [66]). Hamill and Dhanji JJ added that the issue was resolved principally by applying the onus and standard of proof: the jury could accept that the appellant foresaw a participant discharging a firearm but not be satisfied that he foresaw that participant doing so with murderous intent (at [96]).

The Court acknowledged the Crown's case as strong and that an inference of murderous foresight was readily available, but emphasised that the question was what was reasonably open on the evidence, not what the jury would likely conclude (at [75]). The Crown conceded that if a viable basis for manslaughter existed, the trial judge's omission constituted a wrong decision on a question of law within section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), regardless of whether defence counsel had sought the direction (at [63]). That concession was accepted as appropriate (at [63]).

Leave under r 4.15: Real chance of a different verdict

The Court was satisfied that the appellant lost a real chance of being acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. Although the prospect was slim, it was not fanciful and was fairly open to him (at [78]). The error could realistically have affected the jury's reasoning to the verdict of guilty of murder (at [78]).

Ground: Manslaughter by excessive self-defence

The Court rejected this ground entirely. There was no evidentiary foundation for a direction that the appellant believed it necessary, in order to defend himself or others, that the deceased be shot, or that the assault or intimidation was necessary for defensive purposes (at [85], [90]). The appellant's own evidence was that the plan was Mr Hayes's idea and he wanted no part in it, which was contrary to a belief in the necessity of defensive action (at [86]). The Court distinguished the facts from those in Basanovic v R, where the accused had been told his life was in immediate danger and had acted in direct response to an imminent threat (at [89]).

Orders Made

  • Extension of time until 28 January 2026 granted for filing the notice of appeal
  • Leave under Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15, granted as regards the grounds of appeal against conviction
  • Appeal allowed
  • Retrial of the appellant ordered
  • Matter listed for mention in the Supreme Court Arraignment List on Friday, 6 November 2026

Key Takeaways

  • A trial judge's duty to direct the jury on any alternative verdict reasonably open on the evidence applies regardless of whether defence counsel requests that direction; the failure to do so where a viable basis exists constitutes a wrong decision on a question of law under section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) (at [60], [63]).

  • Where the Crown advances an extended joint criminal enterprise case as an alternative to a primary joint criminal enterprise case, the jury may accept that an accused foresaw a participant discharging a loaded firearm during a plan to assault or intimidate, while not being satisfied the accused foresaw that act being carried out with murderous intent; in such circumstances, a manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act direction may be required (at [74], [96]).

  • The discharge of a firearm, or dangerous thrusting of a loaded firearm during a confrontation, can constitute an unlawful and dangerous act sufficient to ground manslaughter liability, consistent with Gilbert, Nguyen, and Gillard, without requiring precise identification of the circumstances in which the act would occur (at [58]-[59], [99]).

  • An accused's own voluntary accounts to police or authorities, even where self-serving, can narrow the range of inferences reasonably available on the evidence and inform whether an alternative verdict has a viable evidentiary foundation (at [73], [75]).

  • For a direction on manslaughter by excessive self-defence under section 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there must be an evidentiary basis establishing the accused actually believed participation in the criminal enterprise was necessary to defend himself or others; evidence of threats and escalating tensions alone does not supply that foundation (at [85], [87]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , ss 18(1)(a), 419, 421
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) , s 6(1)
- Criminal Code (WA), s 32
- Supreme Court ( Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15

Cases
- Al-Sheikh v R [2025] NSWCCA 205
- ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
- Basanovic v R (2018) 100 NSWLR 840; [2018] NSWCCA 246
- Beattie v R [2021] NSWCCA 291
- GBF v The Queen (2020) 271 CLR 537; [2020] HCA 40
- Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
- Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 64
- Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
- Marchesano v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177
- MDP v The King [2025] HCA 24; (2025) 99 ALJR 969
- Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380; [2016] HCA 30
- Mitchell v The King (2023) 276 CLR 299; [2023] HCA 5
- Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
- Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107
- R v Germakian (2007) 70 NSWLR 467; [2007] NSWCCA 373
- R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527; [2005] NSWCCA 385
- R v Wood; R v Hayes; R v McLachlan; R v Harding; R v Farnsworth (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 545
- Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
- The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
- The Queen v Nguyen (2010) 242 CLR 491; [2010] HCA 38
- Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31