Rockhampton’s Supreme Court hears debate about good character references

The ‘good bloke’ defence debate shifted from rapists to drug traffickers in a Qld supreme courtroom after a lawyer was roasted when they tendered a letter ‘waxing lyrical’ about their client.

Justice Graeme Crow attacked the practice of defence barristers and solicitors providing him with “good person” character references for people who traffick or supply drugs. . Pic Annette Dew

The ‘good bloke’ defence debate has shifted from rapists to drug traffickers after a Queensland supreme courtroom heard a rant about how wrong it was to classify these life wreckers as “good people”.

During the sentencing of a Central West Queensland business owner who repeatedly tried to supply a teenage girl drugs, Rockhampton’s Justice Graeme Crow attacked the practice of defence barristers and solicitors providing him with “good person” character references for people trafficking or supplying drugs.

Justice Crow has repeatedly referred to drug traffickers as ‘evil’ who destroy the lives of hundreds – not just the people they supply drugs to, but also their family members.

“It (meth) could turn the normal, decent human beings, particularly males, often males, into animals that will beat and bash and kill women and children,” he told one drug trafficker during their sentencing, when he educated them about Nazi Germans creating methamphetamines to create stormtroopers in World War II.

Mark Charles Woods, 40, was sentenced in the Supreme Court in Rockhampton on May 23 after pleading guilty to one count of supplying drugs to a minor.

The court heard Woods was riding an e-scooter through the main street of Barcaldine about 1am on April 14, 2024, when he approached a female child and her friend.

He first offered girl’s friend a ride on the e-scooter and took them for a few rides before sitting at a picnic table with the pair.

He pulled out a small container containing tablets, bit one in half and told the female child to take the other half.

When she asked what it was, Woods told her “MD” and encouraged her by saying “they were quite f**king enjoyment”.

The child declined but Woods repeatedly offered her the illicit substance, telling her she’d be “in a whole f**king new world in no time” and she’d “be loving it”.

The child repeatedly declined his offers and later reported it to police, providing them with an audio recording of part of the offending.

Woods told police he recalled consuming ecstasy that night but didn’t know what happened to the rest of the pills and did not recall the conversation with the minor, but conceded it was his voice in the audio recording.

Defence barrister Tom Polley provided the court with a character reference, which triggered Justice Crow’s attack on “good person” references for drug suppliers.

“There’s been a bit of press lately about the change in law, suggesting that for serious sex offences, the court ought not to receive character references,” he remarked.

The media coverage started after the State Government tabled urgent reforms to sentencing and penalties for sexual offences this month, including restricted treatment of certain good character evidence when sentencing offenders convicted of sexual offences of a sexual nature.

“I was always a bit perplexed about that because I get lots of character references for drug traffickers like this, telling us they’re wonderful people,” Justice Crow said.

“I should seriously question the sanity of the people that write these things.

“I’d ask solicitors and counsel to read these things before they tender them and depending on the nature of the offence, I understand the purpose of character reference often is to say that this is out of line with what they are usually like.

“And I understand that, but waxing lyrical about ‘most honest, kindest, most highest integrity’ – it’s just a red rag to a bull as far as I’m concerned.

“It’s just so ridiculous.”

He said he sees this type of material all the time.

“It’s just so annoying to receive a character reference just saying how marvellous these people are,” Justice Crow said.

“I find them aggravating.”

He said he couldn’t believe lawyers supplied such letters when they were “so wrong”.

Justice Crow said it “amazed” him that the government had to change the legislation “to tell a judge that a character reference for a serious sex offender is worthless” to stop lawyers wasting paper and ink.

Mr Polley said his client grew up in Barcaldine, had always worked and did not normally drink alcohol, but on this occasion had been drinking since the pubs had opened at about 11am.

He said Woods, a married father-of-two, had worked in the mines for 10 years but recently started his own transport company and volunteers at the local races.

The court heard Woods had one entry on his criminal record – a conviction in the Longreach Magistrates Court from 2020 for supplying drugs.

Justice Crow sentenced Woods to a 12-month prison term wholly suspended and operational for 12 months.

Originally published as Rockhampton’s Supreme Court hears debate about good character references