Golding v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 76

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Golding v R [2012] NSWCCA 76
Hearing dates: 13 April 2012
Decision date: 01 May 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at 1, Hidden J at 2, Hislop J at 3
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted;
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: Criminal law - appeal on ground sentence excessive - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Hyunwook Oh v R [2010] NSWCCA 148
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Scott Golding v Regina
Representation: S. Kluss (Applicant)
M. Cinque (Crown)
Elliot Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2010/54267
Decision under appeal

Citation:

[2011] NSWDC 104

Date of Decision:

2011-07-11 00:00:00

Before:

Cogswell SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/54267

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hislop J.

HIDDEN J: I agree with Hislop J.

HISLOP J: The applicant was charged with recklessly wounding another person contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for the offence is seven years imprisonment. A standard non parole period of three years is applicable.

The applicant pleaded guilty, was convicted and sentenced to two years three months imprisonment commencing on 21 February 2010 and expiring on 20 May 2012 with a balance of term of nine months expiring on 20 February 2013. A charge of common assault was taken into account on a Form 1 in sentencing the applicant. That offence occurred on the same occasion as the s 35(4) offence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence. The ground of appeal is:

"The sentence imposed by his honour was manifestly excessive and in all the circumstances another sentence is warranted in law."

The facts of the offence were recounted by his Honour as follows:

"Mr Golding was working on fishing boats in the Northern Territory. He came to Sydney on 11 January last year [2010] on a break from work and in order to stay at a friend's house in Surry Hills.

5. Mr Stewart of counsel called his client to give evidence. Mr Golding described how he had been drinking before he left Darwin and on the plane flight to Sydney, so that when he got off the plane he was, as he described, 'blind drunk'. He got to his friend's place in Surry Hills and started drinking again straight away. They and others were drinking all day.

6. There was a young woman who lived at the same place who was in the group. Some sort of argument developed and the young woman left.

7. But the young woman came back with a group of men who appeared at the front gate of where Mr Golding was staying and drinking. One of the men who had turned up said that he wanted to 'confront' the people in the house about what had happened. A couple of people from inside…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Golding v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 76
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 76
Decision Date: 01 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the appellant, Golding, appealed against his conviction and sentence for murder, which he had been found guilty of in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence imposed on Golding, which he argued was excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had to decide whether the sentence was indeed excessive and whether it should be reduced.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Golding was excessive and thus warranted a reduction. The court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly the need for sentences to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court also had to assess the circumstances of the crime, the culpability of the offender, and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family. Additionally, the court examined the precedent set by similar cases and the discretion exercised by the trial judge in determining the sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Golding was not excessive, given the circumstances of the crime and the principles of criminal sentencing. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and took into account the relevant factors in determining the appropriate punishment. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence remained unchanged.

No further orders were made by the court in this matter.

Orders