Goodwin v Williams - [2018] ACTSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Goodwin v Williams
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 279
Hearing Date(s):	4 June, 27 July 2015
DecisionDate:	24 October 2018
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The appeal will be dismissed. 2. The parties will be heard about any orders required to give effect to sentences stayed by this appeal.
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – Criminal law – appeal against convictions – claim of errors of fact – claim of error in application of principle – whether verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 38, 300, 301, 304, 306, 308 and 311 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 144 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 28 and 216(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Macleod v The Queen [2003] HCA 24; 214 CLR 230 Mapham v Bannerman [2013] ACTSC 157 R v Baxter and Brading [2012] ACTSC 82; 263 FLR 160 R v Bernhard [1938] 2 KB 264 R v Dardovska [2003] VSCA 4; 6 VR 628 R v Williams [1988] 1 Qd R 289 Roberts v Rhodes [2014] ACTCA 20
Parties:	Jason John Goodwin (Appellant) Daniel Wilton Williams (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Toole (Appellant) Mr J Walker (Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	SCA 11 of 2015
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 20 January 2015 Case Title: R v Goodwin Court File Number(s): CC14/8597; CC14/8598

Introduction

Jason Goodwin was found guilty on 20 January 2015 in the Magistrates Court of one burglary and an associated theft. On 24 February 2015 he was sentenced for those offences.

On 17 February Mr Goodwin filed a notice of appeal against his convictions. He has not appealed against the sentences imposed, but they have presumably been effectively stayed under s 216(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

By an amended notice of appeal dated 19 March 2015, the grounds of appeal were specified as follows:
(a)   Her Honour erred in finding that the defendant’s intent was formed whilst remaining on the premises as opposed to his intent at the time of entry to the premises;
(b)   Her Honour erred in finding that the defendant intended to treat or dispose of the property as his own, and therefore erred in finding the offence of theft was proved.
(c)   Her Honour erred in finding that the defendant acted dishonestly.
(d)   Her Honour erred in applying the principle stated by Brennan J in Liberato v the Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 at 515.
(e)   Her Honour’s finding of guilt was otherwise unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Background

The undisputed facts, in summary, were that the complainant, Michael Collins had lived for some months in a house in a southern suburb of Canberra rented by Kerryn, or…

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 Goodwin v Williams

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v Williams [2018] ACTSC 279
Case: [2018] ACTSC 279
Decision Date: 24 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Goodwin v Williams was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Mr Goodwin, sought to appeal against his conviction for robbery. The legal issues before the court included whether there were errors of fact in the trial and whether there was an error in the application of a principle by the trial judge. Mr Goodwin argued that the trial judge made a number of errors which led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

The court considered the submissions made by the parties and examined the trial record. The court held that the trial judge did not err in finding the facts as he did, nor did he err in his application of the relevant principles. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that there was no basis for concluding that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court also held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in reaching his conclusions.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court ordered that the parties be heard about any orders required to give effect to sentences stayed by this appeal. This means that the conviction and sentence will stand, and the appellant will be required to serve his sentence. The court did not make any other orders in relation to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal will be dismissed.

2. The parties will be heard about any orders required to give effect to sentences stayed by this appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.