Legal Research
Cases
Golding v Gaunt

Golding v Gaunt

Case [2020] WASC 361 9 October 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   GOLDING -v- GAUNT [2020] WASC 361
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   8 OCTOBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   9 OCTOBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1025 of 2020
BETWEEN:   CRAIG RAYMOND GOLDING
Appellant
AND
LINDSAY GAUNT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE JOHNSTON
File Number            :   AL 2877 of 2018, AL 2879 of 2018, AL 2880 of 2018, AL 2881 of 2018, AL 2882 of 2018, AL 2883 of 2018, AL 2885 of 2018, AL 2886 of 2018, AL 2887 of 2018, AL 2889 of 2018, AL 2890 of 2018, AL 2891 of 2018, AL 3124 of 2018, AL 218 of 2019, AL 403 of 2019.

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Sentencing – Appeal against immediate term of imprisonment – Possession of drugs with intent to supply to another – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Breach of totality principle – Express error – Breach of procedural fairness – Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9, s 14(2)
Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 61(2)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6, s 7B(6)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 64AC(1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 39, s 76

Result:

Leave to appeal not granted on grounds 1, 2 and 3
Appeal is dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S B Watters
Respondent	:	Ms M M Yeung

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Kate King Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Apkarian v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 67
Cartwright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 4
Chan v The Queen (1989) 38 A Crim R 337
Chow v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 593
Crichton v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASCA 37
Dahl v Arnold [2020] WASC 224
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Donaldson v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 143
Fenton v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 255
Fogg v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 11
Goodwin v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 184
Hayter v Thomson [2020] WASC 194
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Italiano v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 115
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Lovell v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 169
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Ness v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 56
Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 282
R v Holder & Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Samuel v The State of Western Australia [2004]…

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 Golding v Gaunt

Details

AGLC: Golding v Gaunt [2020] WASC 361
Case: [2020] WASC 361
Decision Date: 9 OCTOBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Golding v Gaunt, the respondent appealed against his sentence for possession of a commercial quantity of a dangerous drug with intent to supply to another, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months, to be served wholly in custody, with a non-parole period of two years and one month. The respondent argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and breached the totality principle. He further argued that the primary judge failed to consider the totality of the punishment and that there was a breach of procedural fairness in the imposition of the sentence.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it breached the totality principle. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the totality principle and the extent to which the primary judge had considered it. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the primary judge had adequately considered the totality principle. The court found that the primary judge's consideration of the totality of the punishment was sufficient and that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the imposition of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court emphasised the importance of the totality principle in sentencing, which requires that the cumulative effect of the sentence be considered. The court found that the primary judge had given appropriate weight to the totality principle and that the sentence was proportionate to the offence. The court also held that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the imposition of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders