Legal Research
Cases
Akon Guode v The Queen

Akon Guode v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 257 30 September 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0137

AKON GUODE	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	FERGUSON CJ, PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 September 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 257
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2017] VSC 285 (Lasry J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Infanticide, murder and attempted murder – Mother caused the death of three children and attempted to kill a fourth – Guilty plea – Background of extreme disadvantage and hardship – Major depressive disorder as a consequence of having given birth to youngest child – Impaired mental functioning – Total effective sentence of 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with non-parole period of 20 years – Whether manifestly excessive – Appeal allowed – Total effective sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 years substituted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr O P Holdenson QC with Ms C A Boston and Ms V Drago	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Ms K E Judd QC, DPP, with Ms A S Ellis	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

FERGUSON CJ

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

On 8 April 2015, Akon Guode, the applicant, deliberately drove her car into a lake in Wyndham Vale. Four of her children were in the car. Aluel, the oldest of those children, was 5 years old; Madit and Hangar, who were twins, were 4 years old; and Bol, the applicant’s youngest child, was 16 months old. Madit, Hangar and Bol drowned. The applicant and Aluel survived.

On 16 January 2017, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to the infanticide of Bol (charge 1), the murders of Madit and Hangar (charges 2 and 3) and the attempted murder of Aluel (charge 4). On 30 May 2017, following a plea hearing conducted in March and April of that year, the judge (Lasry J) sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of 26 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years,[1] in accordance with the following table:
[1]R v Guode [2017] VSC 285 (‘Sentencing Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Penalty Sentence Cumulation

Charge 1

Infanticide

5 years

12 months

6 months

Charge 2 Murder Life 22 years Base

Charge 3 Murder Life 22 years 3 years

Charge 4 Attempted murder 25 years 6 years 1 year

Total effective sentence: 26 years and 6 months

Non-parole period: 20 years

Following sentencing, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds of manifest excess. That application was initially refused on the papers by a single judge of this Court (Weinberg JA),[2] but was renewed by the applicant pursuant to s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
[2]Guode v The Queen [2017] VSCA 311 (‘Initial Leave Reasons’).

On 16 August 2018, this Court granted the applicant’s application for leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and resentenced the applicant to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Akon Guode v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Akon Guode v The Queen [2020] VSCA 257
Case: [2020] VSCA 257
Decision Date: 30 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Akon Guode v The Queen, the appellant faced the Supreme Court of Victoria on appeal against her sentence. Guode was found guilty of the murder of her two-year-old daughter, infanticide in relation to her six-week-old son, and the attempted murder of her four-year-old daughter. The appellant had a history of significant disadvantage, including domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues. At the time of the offences, she was suffering from major depressive disorder, which had resulted from the birth of her youngest child, and had impaired mental functioning. The trial judge sentenced Guode to a total effective term of 26 years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. Guode appealed against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant’s circumstances and the principles of sentencing. The appellant argued that the sentence did not take adequate account of her personal circumstances and the impact of her mental health issues on her culpability. The appellant also submitted that the sentence was disproportionate to the offending and did not reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the gravity of the offences committed by the appellant.

In allowing the appeal, the court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant’s personal circumstances were significant and that her mental health issues had a profound impact on her culpability. The court also found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court considered that the appropriate sentence should be one that recognised the gravity of the offences while also taking into account the appellant’s personal circumstances and the need for rehabilitation. Accordingly, the court substituted a total effective sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be upheld, and a total effective sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years, be substituted for the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court also ordered that the appellant be given credit for the time already served in custody.

Orders