Godwin v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 134

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Godwin v R [2025] NSWCCA 134
Hearing dates: 25 July 2025
Date of orders: 27 August 2025
Decision date: 27 August 2025
Before: Ward P at [1]; Hamill J and Dhanji J at [153]
Decision:
1.   Extend time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal to 24 March 2025 and direct that this be treated as an application for leave to appeal.
2.   Grant leave to appeal.
3.   Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Conviction appeal – Specially aggravated break and enter dwelling house and commit a serious indictable offence (intimidation, armed with a dangerous weapon) – Fire firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of other persons – Possess firearm, not being authorised by licence or permit – Whether guilty verdict unreasonable and not supported by the evidence

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b), 10(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 165(1)(a)
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 3.5(5)

Cases Cited:
BA v The King (2023) 275 CLR 128; [2023] HCA 14
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
Ozgen v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 65
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 99 ALJR 676

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Duncan Godwin (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Howell with C Akthar (Applicant)
F Sullivan (Respondent)
Solicitors:
James & Jaramillo Lawyers (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00059075
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

21 August 2023, 19 October 2023

Before:

M Allen SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/00059075

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant (Duncan Godwin) was convicted on 19 May 2023 on three counts relating to the discharge of a firearm on 1 March 2021. On 19 October 2023, the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months.

The Crown case was that, after conflict between the applicant and his son (Jack), the applicant: went to Jack’s home with a loaded firearm; banged loudly on the front door; swore at Jack and demanded that Jack come outside; unlawfully entered the home; threatened Jack’s partner, Brittany Tekely, in the presence of her four year old daughter; discharged the firearm into the floor outside the upstairs bedroom; and fired a number of rounds from the firearm downstairs. On the Crown…

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 Godwin v The King

Details

AGLC: Godwin v The King [2025] NSWCCA 134
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 134
Decision Date: 27 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Godwin versus The King, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction for multiple criminal offences. The case came before the High Court of Australia. The appellant was found guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling house, committing a serious indictable offence of intimidation while armed with a dangerous weapon, firing a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of other persons, and possessing a firearm without being authorised by a licence or permit. The appeal centred on the contention that the guilty verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's conviction was supported by the evidence presented at trial and whether it was unreasonable. The court had to determine if the jury's decision to convict was one that no reasonable jury could have made based on the evidence. The appellant argued that there were inconsistencies in the evidence, which undermined the reliability of the verdict. The prosecution maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the jury had made a reasonable decision based on the facts presented.

The court examined the evidence meticulously and concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence. The court found that the inconsistencies in the evidence did not undermine the overall reliability of the verdict. The court held that the jury was entitled to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and that their decision was one that a reasonable jury could have made. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence of the appellant stand affirmed. The appellant's challenge to the verdict's reasonableness and evidentiary support was rejected, and the original judgment of the lower court was upheld.

Orders