DPP v Godfrey - [2020] VSC 197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0340

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
TRACY LEIGH GODFREY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 April 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 April 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Godfrey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 197

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Assist offender — Principal offence reckless conduct endangering serious injury — Disposed of possible evidence — Plea of guilty — Limited prior history — Accused sole caregiver of children — Adjourned undertaking for 18 months with conviction — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 325, Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 6AAA and 72.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P O’Halloran	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S Poulter	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Tracey Godfrey, on 6 April 2020 in this Court, you pleaded guilty to one rolled-up charge of assisting an offender contrary to s 325 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Briefly, this charge relates to your conduct following shooting death of Joshua Dipietro (the ‘deceased’) on 3 September 2017 as he sat in a motor vehicle outside your premises at [redacted], Rosebud. Whilst you were at the premises at the time, you played no part in the shooting and remained inside throughout.

It is alleged that, following the shooting of the deceased, you knew or believed that your sons Craig Williams and John Godfrey had committed a serious indictable offence and without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, you removed a CCTV recording unit from [redacted] and gave it to Craig Williams, and that, on a day shortly thereafter, you removed both live and fired ammunition casings from that address and gave them to William Scorse. You did these things for the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of Craig Williams and/or John Godfrey.

Although originally charged with the deceased’s murder, Craig Williams has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and John Godfrey has pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury. As you had knowledge of the principal offence of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, the relevant maximum penalty for the offence to which you have pleaded guilty is imprisonment for two years and six months.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 325(4)(b)(ii).

Prior to the hearing of your plea in mitigation on 6 April 2020, I received a summary of the prosecution opening in relation to your part in these matters. On the day of the hearing, I also heard submissions on your behalf and from the prosecution as to the sentence that should be imposed on you. I also received a victim impact statement from Fiona Dipietro, the mother of the deceased man, parts of which she read to the Court.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this offence.

Background and circumstances of offending

I will now briefly summarise the facts and surrounding circumstances which you accept…

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 DPP v Godfrey

Details

AGLC: DPP v Godfrey [2020] VSC 197
Case: [2020] VSC 197
Decision Date: 22 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Godfrey involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, representing the state of Victoria, against the defendant, Godfrey. Godfrey was charged with assisting a person to commit an indictable offence and was also charged with the principal offence of engaging in conduct that was reckless as to causing serious injury. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for Godfrey, who had pleaded guilty to both charges. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Godfrey, considering his role in assisting the principal offence, the disposal of potential evidence, and his personal circumstances, including his status as the sole caregiver for his children. The court had to balance these factors against the seriousness of the offence and the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

The County Court, presided over by [Judge's Name], carefully considered the statutory provisions under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), particularly sections 6AAA and 72. The court noted Godfrey's limited prior criminal history and his significant role as the primary caregiver for his children, which were mitigating factors. However, it also acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the disposal of potential evidence. Ultimately, the court decided to impose an adjourned undertaking for 18 months with a conviction recorded, reflecting a balance between the need for punishment and the personal circumstances of Godfrey.

No further orders were made beyond the imposition of the adjourned undertaking and the recording of the conviction.

Orders