Goodfellow v The Queen - [2021] VSCA 262

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0018

JAMES DEAN GOODFELLOW	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL, EMERTON and SIFRIS JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 262
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VCC 1600 (Judge Johns)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of aggravated home invasion and theft – Applicant alleged to be ‘man in the grey hoodie’ who entered home with three other men – Identity in issue – Circumstantial case based on palm print found on rear window of vehicle used in home invasion, empty medication bottle in applicant’s name found in vehicle, and applicant’s DNA on grey hoodie discovered close to crime scene – DNA evidence on grey hoodie of mixed combination involving at least two contributors – Victim did not identify the applicant on a photo identification board – Whether reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty – Not reasonably open to the jury to be so satisfied – Real possibility that someone other than the applicant was the man in the grey hoodie – M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559, Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123, applied – Extension of time and application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Convictions set aside – Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 276(1)(a).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms F Gerry QC with Ms M Casey	Greg Thomas, Barristers & Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr C Boyce QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NIALL JA

EMERTON JA
SIFRIS JA:

Introduction

On 7 March 2019, after a nine day trial in the County Court of Victoria, the applicant was found guilty of aggravated home invasion[1] and theft.[2] Verdicts of acquittal had previously been directed on two other charges arising from the same incident.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 77B.
[2]Crimes Act 1958 s 74(1).

The indictment alleged that in the early hours of 21 January 2017, the applicant, in the company of three other men — Jonnie Gration, Gary Murphy and an unknown male — attended a private home in Foxton Street, St Albans. They kicked in the front door, confronted one of the residents and stole various items.

The four men were captured on CCTV entering the house. Gration was carrying an air rifle, Murphy was carrying a baseball bat and the other two offenders were unarmed. The applicant was alleged to have been one of the two unarmed offenders. It was alleged that he was the man seen to be wearing a grey hoodie.

The house was owned by Martin Srokowski, who lived there with his partner Natasha Leone. Srokowski fled over the back fence before the men entered the house. Leone remained and was confronted by the men. She gave evidence about…

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 Goodfellow v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Goodfellow v The Queen [2021] VSCA 262
Case: [2021] VSCA 262
Decision Date: 16 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Goodfellow v The Queen, the High Court was asked to consider an appeal against the applicant’s conviction for aggravated home invasion and theft. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury based on circumstantial evidence, including a palm print found on the rear window of a vehicle used in the crime, an empty medication bottle in the applicant's name found in the vehicle, and the applicant’s DNA on a grey hoodie discovered near the crime scene. The crucial issue before the court was whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty.

The court examined the nature of the evidence presented against the applicant and the possibility that someone other than the applicant could have been the ‘man in the grey hoodie’. The DNA evidence on the hoodie was of a mixed combination, involving at least two contributors. Additionally, the victim did not identify the applicant during a photo identification process. The court held that it was not reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty, given the real possibility that someone other than the applicant was the man in the grey hoodie. The court applied principles from M v The Queen, Libke v The Queen, and Pell v The Queen to conclude that the evidence did not meet the necessary standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court granted the extension of time and application for leave to appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the applicant’s convictions were set aside under section 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

Orders