Godwin v The Queen - [2003] NTCCA 7

Godwin v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 7
PARTIES:LIONEL ANTHONY GODWIN
v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 5 of 2002 (9913901)
DELIVERED:  12 September 2003
HEARING DATES:  18 and 19 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, THOMAS & RILEY JJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:C.R. McDonald QC, R. Goldflam
Respondent:  P.X. Elliott
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  ril0324
Number of pages:  31

ril0324
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Godwin v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 7
No. CA 5 of 2002 (9913901)
BETWEEN:

LIONEL ANTHONY GODWIN

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, THOMAS & RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 12 September 2003)
THE COURT:

In 1997 the appellant embarked upon an ever-escalating series of dishonest and deceitful acts that continued until early 1998. As a direct consequence of his conduct many people suffered loss, including his then de facto wife, her father, his business partners and a private company that lent money to the business.

On 10 December 2001 the appellant pleaded guilty to 8 offences arising out of his misconduct, being: the obtaining of property by deception contrary to s 227(1) of the Criminal Code (3 counts); publishing a false statement with intent to deceive contrary to s 234 of the Criminal Code; forgery contrary to s 258(d) of the Criminal Code (3 counts); and by deception procuring the execution of a valuable security, namely a mortgage, contrary to s 235(2) of the Criminal Code. On 5 February 2002, after a hearing at which evidence was called and some of the victims were cross-examined, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 years with a non-parole period of 6 years. The sentence was backdated to take into account time spent in custody.
The appellant has obtained leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentence imposed infringed the totality principle. He seeks leave to appeal on a number of other grounds including:
(a)     The learned judge erred in concluding that the case could not         be regarded as an early plea;
(b)     The learned judge erred in that insufficient weight was given         to the applicant’s remorse;
(c)     The learned judge failed to give adequate reasons for the                sentence he imposed;
(d)     The learned judge’s sentencing remarks were tainted by error         of law in that he failed to take into account relevant   considerations, namely the quantum of the loss suffered and                   the issue of restitution;
(e)     The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to give the                 applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation sufficient weight;
(f)     The learned judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in             sentencing the appellant to an aggregate term of imprisonment.
The application in relation to ground (f) was abandoned during the…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Godwin v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 7
Case: [2003] NTCCA 7
Decision Date: 12 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Godwin v The Queen*, the Court of Appeal of Western Australia considered an appeal against a conviction for aggravated burglary and assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant, Godwin, had been found guilty by a jury of these offences, which arose from an incident involving an alleged home invasion.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically a confession made by the appellant, and whether the jury directions provided were adequate. The appellant argued that the confession was involuntary and should have been excluded, and that the jury was not properly instructed on the elements of the offences or on how to approach the evidence.

The Court of Appeal analysed the circumstances surrounding the confession, applying the principles established in *R v Swaffield* and *DPP v Harris* regarding the voluntariness of admissions. It found that while there were some irregularities in the police interview, the confession was not rendered involuntary by reason of oppression or inducement. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the trial judge's summing up, concluding that the directions given to the jury, when read as a whole, adequately explained the law and the relevant evidential issues, including the need for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each element of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal upholding the conviction.

Orders