Jason Goillon v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 194

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0206

JASON GOILLON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN, HARGRAVE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 July 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 August 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 194
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Goillon [2017] VCC 1220 (Judge Sexton)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of five charges of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 – Alleged inconsistencies between evidence given by complainant at VARE and at special hearing – Evidence of defence witnesses regarding collateral matters ‘unchallenged’ at trial – Whether verdict unreasonable or unable to be supported having regard to the evidence – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed – Ward (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 37 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P J Smallwood	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr C Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN
HARGRAVE

WEINBERG JJA:

The applicant stood trial in the County Court at Melbourne and was convicted of five charges of committing an indecent act with a child under 16. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction, relying on the following proposed ground:

The verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

Background

On 7 November 2015, the complainant, aged eight at the time, was on a weekend access visit with her father, who was temporarily residing at the applicant’s home. The applicant was then aged 40.

On the Saturday evening, the second night of the access visit, the complainant and her sister were sleeping on an L-shaped couch in the living room. Their father had already gone to sleep in another room. Their younger brother was sleeping on the floor in the living room.

The applicant took his doona from his bedroom and lay on the couch to watch television. Subsequently, the complainant ended up lying beside the applicant, under his doona. It was said that the offences were committed while the two of them shared the doona.

The complainant gave evidence that, at some point while they were lying on the couch, she woke to find that the applicant had placed his penis on her leg (charge 1). She said that he then rubbed his penis against her vagina, and her bottom, over her clothing (charge 2). He next rubbed her vagina with his finger after pulling her clothing to her knees (charge 3), licked her vagina (charge 4), and rubbed his penis against her vagina, causing her pain (charge 5). On 13 November 2017, some six days later, the complainant told her mother what she said the applicant had done to her. Her mother reported the complaints to the police that day, and a VARE[1] was conducted soon after.
[1]A VARE is a Visual and Audio Recording of Evidence. It is standard practice to take a statement from a young complainant in this…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jason Goillon v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] VSCA 194
Decision Date: 8 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason Goillon appealed his conviction and sentence on five charges of committing an indecent act with a child under 16. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. The appeal concerned the consistency of the evidence given by the complainant and the failure of the trial judge to address evidence from the defence witnesses. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal.

The central issue before the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable or unable to be supported considering the evidence. The applicant argued that the trial judge failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and failed to consider the unchallenged evidence of the defence witnesses. The Crown maintained that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence and was entitled to find the applicant guilty. The court considered whether the trial judge's approach to the evidence was flawed and whether the verdict was unreasonable.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in their approach to the evidence and that the verdict was open to the trial judge on the evidence before them. The court found that the trial judge had considered the evidence from the defence witnesses and had not overlooked any inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed as the verdict was open to the trial judge and not unreasonable.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. The court considered the decision in Ward (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 37 in reaching its decision. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence be affirmed.

Orders