GODDARD -v- R [1999] WASCA 281
| (1999) 21 WAR 541 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 281 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:60/1999 | 4 OCTOBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J MURRAY J | 17/12/99 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal grantedAppeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ADAM TROY GODDARD THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Disparity between sentences imposed upon co-offenders Offender convicted on two counts of armed robbery in company, three counts of attempted armed robbery in company and three counts of stealing a motor vehicle Sentenced in addition on 12 charges instituted in Court of Petty Sessions Offender aged 18 at time of offences Poor antecedents Effective sentence of 7 years with eligibility for parole Co-offender sentenced on same counts and two additional counts of stealing a motor vehicle and armed robbery in company Co-offender also sentenced on one charge of stealing instituted in Court of Petty Sessions Co-offender aged 21 and having better antecedents Effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months with eligibility for parole imposed upon co-offender Sentence of co-offender inadequate and below the range of a sound sentencing discretion |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Holtom & Marriott v R [1970] WAR 85 Lovelock v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 132 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 O'Malley v French (1971) 2 SASR 110 Pecora v R [1980] VR 499 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Brindley (1993) 66 A Crim R 204 R v Capper (1993) 69 A Crim R 64 R v Cox (1991) 55 A Crim R 396 R v Dickes (1983) 10 A Crim R 88 R v Goldberg [1959] VR 311 R v Hodges (1997) 95 A Crim R 85 R v MacGowan (1986) 42 SASR 580 R v Maslen (1995) 79 A Crim R 199 R v Nikodjevic [1998] 2 VR 33 R v Reardan (1996) 89 A Crim R 180 R v Robertson (1989) 44 A Crim R 224 R v Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 R v Taudevin [1996] 2 VR 402 R v Tisalandis (1982) 2 NSWLR 430 Thorne v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990154; 29 March 1999 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Eastment v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990185; 16 April 1999 Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 5 August 1994 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jarvis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Mortimer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970526; 14 October 1997 Nguyen v The Queen [1999] WASCA 54 Nicholls v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930584; 19 October… |
Continue reading Goddard v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Goddard v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was called upon to examine the fairness and appropriateness of sentences imposed on two co-offenders involved in a series of armed robberies and motor vehicle thefts. Goddard, convicted on multiple counts of armed robbery and related offences, was sentenced to an effective term of seven years, whereas his co-offender received a lesser sentence of three years and six months despite being convicted of similar offences. The disparity in sentences prompted Goddard to appeal on the grounds that his sentence was excessive and disproportionate compared to that of his co-offender.
The legal issues before the court included whether the disparity between the sentences was unjust and whether the lower court had exercised its sentencing discretion soundly. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the sentence imposed on Goddard was appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offences, the offender's age at the time of the crimes, and his criminal history, as well as whether the sentence of the co-offender was inadequate.
In delivering the judgment, the court highlighted that sentencing decisions must be fair and balanced, taking into account all relevant factors. The court found that while Goddard's criminal history and age at the time of the offences were significant, they did not justify the substantial disparity in the sentences. The court determined that the co-offender's sentence was inadequate as it fell below the range of a sound sentencing discretion. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the disparity between the sentences was unjust and that the appeal should be dismissed. However, the court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the matter could be revisited if new evidence or arguments were presented.
The legal issues before the court included whether the disparity between the sentences was unjust and whether the lower court had exercised its sentencing discretion soundly. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the sentence imposed on Goddard was appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offences, the offender's age at the time of the crimes, and his criminal history, as well as whether the sentence of the co-offender was inadequate.
In delivering the judgment, the court highlighted that sentencing decisions must be fair and balanced, taking into account all relevant factors. The court found that while Goddard's criminal history and age at the time of the offences were significant, they did not justify the substantial disparity in the sentences. The court determined that the co-offender's sentence was inadequate as it fell below the range of a sound sentencing discretion. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the disparity between the sentences was unjust and that the appeal should be dismissed. However, the court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the matter could be revisited if new evidence or arguments were presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal grantedAppeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.