Godfrey v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 271

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Godfrey v R [2016] NSWCCA 271
Hearing dates: 28 November 2016
Decision date: 02 December 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Adams J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis – attempt to supply prohibited firearm – discount for guilty pleas not erroneously applied to aggregate sentence instead of indicative sentences –no failure to take into account the applicant’s subjective case – sentence not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(3)
Cases Cited: JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bronson Samual Godfrey (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Smith SC (Applicant)
Ms M Cinque SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2014/174413
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

29 April 2015

Before:

Blackmore SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/174413

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J and the orders which he proposes.
ADAMS J: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: Bronson Samual Godfrey (“the applicant”) seeks leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years imposed in the District Court at Lismore on 29 April 2015 by his Honour Judge Blackmore SC.
Details of the offences and the sentences the judge would have imposed if he had not imposed an aggregate sentence are as follows:

Seq No

Date / Offence

Max penalty/SNPP

Indicative sentence

1

14.5.14: Not stopping during police pursuit

s 51B(1) Crimes Act 1900

3 yrs and/or fine of $11000

Disq: Auto – 3yrs; Min – 12 mths

1 yr

Disq: 3 yrs

5

6.3.14: Possess unauthorised prohibited firearm

s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996

14 yrs / 3yrs

3 yrs 6 mths

NPP 2 yrs

10

6.3.14: Attempt to supply prohibited firearm

s 51(1A)/51CA Firearms Act 1996

20 yrs / 10 yrs

6 yrs

NPP 3 yrs 9 mths

(taking into account Form 1 matters)

11

Between 22.2.14 – 23.3.14: Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis

s 25A(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

20 yrs and/or fine of $385,000

3 yrs

12

Between 5.4.14 – 4.5.14: Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis

s 25A(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

20 yrs and/or fine of $385,000

3 yrs

13

Between 9.5.14 – 24.5.14: Supply prohibited drug on an ongoing basis

s 25A(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

20 yrs and/or fine of $385,000

3 yrs

17

11.6.14: Possess unauthorised pistol

s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996

14 yrs / 3 yrs

2 yrs 6 mths

NPP 1 yr 6 mths

At the applicant's request, the judge took into account…

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 Godfrey v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Godfrey v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 271
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 271
Decision Date: 02 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Godfrey appealed against his sentence, following a conviction for the supply of a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis and an attempt to supply a prohibited firearm. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The key issue before the court was whether the trial judge had applied an incorrect discount for Godfrey’s guilty pleas and whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge had not applied the discount for the guilty pleas in error. The discount was properly applied to the aggregate sentence rather than each indicative sentence. The court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had appropriately considered Godfrey’s subjective case and taken into account all relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offending and Godfrey’s personal circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders