Legal Research
Cases
Goldman v The Queen

Goldman v The Queen

Case [2021] NSWCCA 197 20 August 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldman v R [2021] NSWCCA 197
Hearing dates: 23 July 2021
Date of orders: 20 August 2021
Decision date: 20 August 2021
Before: Payne JA at [1];
Davies J at [153];
Ierace J at [154]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted;

(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – where applicant convicted of one count of assault but acquitted of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one count of indecent assault and two counts of sexual intercourse without consent – whether there was in all the circumstances a miscarriage of justice – whether the complainant was unreliable and lacking in credit – whether the nature and quality of the evidence, as a whole, and the acquittals was such that the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt about the applicant’s guilt – where no reason to doubt the reliability or credibility of the complainant – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(1), 61, 61I, 61L
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 8
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Cases Cited:
AH v R [2019] NSWCCA 152
Holt v R [2021] NSWCCA 140
Jafary v R [2018] NSWCCA 243
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
ML v R [2015] NSWCCA 27
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v Stone (Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (England and Wales), 13 December 1954, unrep)
R v TK (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Emmanuel Goldman (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Bellanto QC with T Bicanic (Applicant)
F Veltro SC with J Dewhurst (Crown)
Solicitors:
Keypoint Law (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2019/206553
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the publication of information or material that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant is prohibited.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

12 August 2020

Before:

Hock DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/206553

HEADNOTE

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

The applicant, Mr Goldman, stood trial before Hock DCJ and a jury on an indictment containing one…

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 Goldman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Goldman v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 197
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 197
Decision Date: 20 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goldman v The Queen, the appellant challenged his conviction on one count of assault, while being acquitted on other charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, indecent assault, and sexual intercourse without consent. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and if there was a miscarriage of justice in convicting the appellant on one count but acquitting him on others. The central legal issue was whether the jury should have entertained a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt given the nature and quality of the evidence and the acquittals on other charges.

The court examined the reliability and credibility of the complainant, finding no basis to doubt them. The appellant argued that the complainant was unreliable and lacking in credit, but the court found no merit in this contention. The High Court assessed the overall evidence, including the inconsistencies in the complainant's account and the acquittals on other counts, to determine if the jury should have had reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the count of assault, despite the acquittals on other charges.

The reasoning of the court was that the jury was not compelled to find a uniform pattern of guilt across all charges and could convict on one count based on the evidence presented. The acquittals on other charges did not necessarily undermine the conviction on the assault charge, as each charge was assessed independently. The court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction on the count of assault.

Orders