Legal Research
Cases
Goodbun v R

Goodbun v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 77 23 April 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
Hearing dates: 11 September 2019
Date of orders: 23 April 2020
Decision date: 23 April 2020
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Fullerton J at [117]; Bellew J at [134]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Whether unnecessary to make a finding of special circumstances – Manifest excess – Whether aggregate sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unjust – Gravity of offending
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Barrett v R [2020] NSWCCA 11
Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164
Browning v R [2015] NSWCCA 147
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Darcy-Shillingsworth [2017] NSWCCA 224; (2017) 269 A Crim R 40
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41
DJM v R [2013] NSWCCA 101
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) A Crim R 528
Jolly v R (2013) 229 A Crim R 198; [2013] NSWCCA 76
Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Kelsall v R [2017] NSWCCA 240
MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183
O’Connell v R [2006] NSWCCA 82
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Park v R [2019] NSWCCA 105
Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129
R v AKB (No 8) [2018] NSWSC 1628
R v Bond [2001] NSWSC 1059
R v Boyd [2018] NSWSC 380
R v Cameron (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Newman J, 16 October 1992)
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v Cullen [2015] NSWSC 768
R v Dent [2016] NSWSC 444
R v Droudis (No.16) [2017] NSWSC 20
R v Evans (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 1523
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v O’Connell [2004] NSWSC 1120
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Stani-Reginald [2013] NSWSC 567
R v Stephen James Boyd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 380
R v Villaluna [2017] NSWSC 1390
RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236
Thach v R [2018] NSWCCA 252
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Keith Owen Goodbun (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
B Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/299268
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

[2018] NSWSC 1025

Date of Decision:

4 July 2018

Before:

Wilson J

File Number(s):

2016/299268

Judgment

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 Goodbun v R

Details

AGLC: Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 77
Decision Date: 23 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Goodbun, appealed against his sentence for drug trafficking. The dispute centred on whether the sentencing judge had erred by not making a finding of special circumstances, and whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or plainly unjust. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge should have made a finding of special circumstances, and if the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive or plainly unjust. The court considered whether the judge's failure to make a finding of special circumstances was a material error, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or plainly unjust in light of the gravity of the offending.

The High Court held that the sentencing judge's failure to make a finding of special circumstances was not a material error, as the judge had thoroughly considered the defendant's personal circumstances and mitigating factors. However, the court found that the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and plainly unjust, given the gravity of the offending. The court noted that the sentence was disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime and did not account for the mitigating factors presented. The court reduced the sentence to a term that was deemed more appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the aggregate sentence was reduced to a term that was deemed more appropriate.

Orders