Legal Research
Cases
R v Goboly

R v Goboly

Case [2016] ACTSC 322 24 October 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Goboly
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 322
Hearing Date:	20 October 2016
DecisionDate:	24 October 2016
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Brandon Charles Goboly be convicted of committing an act of indecency on the victim, being a person under the age of 16 years. 2. Brandon Charles Goboly be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of four months from 24 October 2016. 3. Brandon Charles Goboly be convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim, being a person under the age of 16 years. 4. Brandon Charles Goboly be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, commencing on 20 August 2016, to take into account pre-sentence custody. 5. That sentence be suspended from 24 October 2016 for 12 months. 6. Brandon Charles Goboly be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for a period of 12 months from 24 October 2016, with the following conditions: (i) a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 12 months and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him; (ii) a condition that he submit himself for assessment for suitability of the ACT Corrective Services Adult Sex Offender’s Program and, if found suitable, undertake the Program. 7. Brandon Charles Goboly be convicted of committing a second act of indecency on the victim, being a person under the age of 16 years. 8. Brandon Charles Goboly be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for four months, commencing on 24 August 2017.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – serious offences – multiple offences – victim aged 13 years old – committing an act of indecency on a person under the age of 16 years – sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 years – consideration – subjective circumstances – prospects of re-offending – remorse – guilty plea – suspended sentence – Good Behaviour Order – Adult Sex Offenders Program
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 55(2), 61(2) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 13, 33, 33(1)(za)
Cases Cited:	Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43 Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361 CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440 Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50 Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 Goundar v Goddard (2010) 240 FLR 176 Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 Martin v The Queen [2013] VSCA 377; 238 A Crim R 449 McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121 McKenna v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 455 OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148 R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 115 R v BJW

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 R v Goboly

Details

AGLC: R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322
Case: [2016] ACTSC 322
Decision Date: 24 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Brandon Charles Goboly, was convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for multiple sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim. The court heard that Goboly had committed acts of indecency and engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, all of which were committed when the victim was under the age of 16. The nature of the offences was serious and the court was required to consider the appropriate punishment and rehabilitation measures for Goboly.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including the appropriate sentence for the multiple offences committed against a minor, the subjective circumstances surrounding the offences, and the prospects of Goboly reoffending. The court also had to consider the defendant's guilty plea and expressions of remorse, as well as his suitability for the Adult Sex Offenders Program. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

In its judgment, the court considered the seriousness of the offences and the vulnerability of the victim. The court also took into account the defendant's guilty plea and the absence of any previous convictions. The court determined that a suspended sentence and Good Behaviour Order were appropriate, given the defendant's remorse and potential for rehabilitation. The court ordered that Goboly be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, which was suspended for 12 months, and required him to sign an undertaking to comply with the Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act. Goboly was also required to submit himself for assessment for suitability of the ACT Corrective Services Adult Sex Offender’s Program and, if found suitable, undertake the Program.

The final orders of the court included convictions for the offences committed against the victim, a suspended sentence, and requirements for Good Behaviour Obligations and participation in the Adult Sex Offenders Program. Goboly was also required to sign undertakings to comply with the Good Behaviour Obligations for specified periods.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Brandon Charles Goboly be convicted of committing an act of indecency on the victim, being a person under the age of 16 years.

2. Brandon Charles Goboly be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of four months from 24 October 2016.

3. Brandon Charles Goboly be convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim, being a person under the age of 16 years.

4. Brandon Charles Goboly be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, commencing on 20 August 2016, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

5. That sentence be suspended from 24 October 2016 for 12 months.

6. Brandon Charles Goboly be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for a period of 12 months from 24 October 2016, with the following conditions:

(i) a probation condition that he be under the supervision of the Director-General or her delegate for 12 months and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him;

(ii) a condition that he submit himself for assessment for suitability of the ACT Corrective Services Adult Sex Offender’s Program and, if found suitable, undertake the Program.

7. Brandon Charles Goboly be convicted of committing a second act of indecency on the victim, being a person under the age of 16 years.

8. Brandon Charles Goboly be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act for four months, commencing on 24 August 2017.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322

Most Recent Citation

R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1

Cases Citing This Decision

Director of Public Prosecutions v Benn (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 266
Citation 1

…upreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 1 April 2024) R v Buda-Kaa [2013] ACTCA 46 R v Finau (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 193 R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 R v Hope [2021] ACTSC 101 R v Kelly [2020] ACTSC 292 R v Kindl [2015] ACTSC 128 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 1…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Black (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 89
Citation 2

…R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32 R v CX (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 325 R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56; 239 A Crim R 469 R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 R v Goold (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 95 R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52 R v MC (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 61 R v Middleton (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 123 R v Naing [2023] ACTSC 21…
Director of Public Prosecutions v McKay [2025] ACTSC 42
Citation 3

…(No 4) [202] ACTSC 350 R v Aroub [2017] ACTSC 187 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 R v Forrest [2016] ACTSC 321; 11 ACTLR 311 R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Kindl [2015] ACTSC 128 R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 25 R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; 279 A Crim R 232 R v Ngata [2015] ACTSC…
Director of Public Prosecutions v van de Zandt (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 359
Citation 4

…rector of Public Prosecutions v Myers (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 142 R v Aitchison (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 214 R v Bek (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 324 R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22 R v Nona [2015] ACTSC 136 R v Skinner (1994) 72 A Crim R 151 R v Naing [2023] ACTSC 210…
R v Garay (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 138
Citation 5

…v DB [2015] ACTSC 28 R v DK [2016] ACTCA 7 R v DU (No 4) [2020] ACTSC 174 R v Francis [2021] ACTSC 212 R v Garay (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 215 R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v Kelly [2014] ACTSC 117 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v KS [2018] ACTSC 2…
R v Elcheikh [2019] ACTSC 359
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…n sentence though in this case it has not been established that it is extra-curial punishment in accordance with the authorities, see: CV; R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 at [56]; R v TW (Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 15 November 2013).…
R v Horton-Hegarty [2018] ACTCA 22
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…greeing to have sexual intercourse and giving informed consent: at [36]. His Honour referred to and discussed two decisions of this Court, R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 and R v Dickerson [2016] ACTSC 337: at [37]‑[38]. His Honour acknowledged the relative seriousness of the type of intercourse that occurred (penile-v…
R v CO [2017] ACTSC 391
Citation 8

…R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22; 233 A Crim R 67 R v EO [2017] ACTSC 138 R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 R v KF (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 23 July 2012) R v SA (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Burns J, 7 June 2013) R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256…
R v Horton-Hegarty [2017] ACTSC 268
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…One of the cases I was referred to on behalf of the offender is R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322. In this matter, a young man received a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to one count of sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl and another count of an act of indecency. There is an important point of distinction…
R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…n the victim is a child. Secondly, it is not a matter of mitigation that a child is approaching the age of 16 years. As I pointed out in R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 at [60]-[62], the position is that the younger the age of the victim represents a more serious version of the offence; greater youth can be a matter of…
R v Eyles (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 1
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…der. I commonly point out to those, whom I require to enter a Good Behaviour Order, the advantages to them of supervision. For example, in R v Goboly [2016] ACTSC 322 at [103], I said:…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Scott [2017] SASCFC 96
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…In R v Scott (2009) 22 VR 41 at 60; [97]-[98], Neave JA, with whom Redlich JA agreed, Robson AJA making comments to the same effect, said:…
R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…016] ACTSC 111, R v QI (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188, R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220, R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256, R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52, and R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294.…
Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…relevant in this case because the initial contact in April 2015 was part of the one incident, although two discrete offences. See Gillard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 50 [15]-[19].…
R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…had regard to other recent decisions, including R v NCE [2016] ACTSC 111, R v QI (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188, R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220, R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256, R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52, and R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294.…
R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…I have also had regard to other recent decisions, including R v NCE [2016] ACTSC 111, R v QI (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188, R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220, R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256, R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52, and R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294.…
R v NF (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 216
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…es to seek employment. Strict bail conditions, especially when there is satisfactory compliance can be a relevant factor in sentencing: R v NF (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 216 at [79]. I take this into account.…
R v Qi (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…I have also had regard to other recent decisions, including R v NCE [2016] ACTSC 111, R v QI (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188, R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220, R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256, R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52, and R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294.…
R v BNS (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 145
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) to have regard to current sentencing practice. In this case, I have regard to what I said in R v BNS (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 145 and the cases referred to there at [59].…
R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 142
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…Mr Goboly has been assessed as suitable for the SMART Recovery Program. I have described the Program in R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 142 [78]-[80]. He has also been assessed as suitable for the Adult Sex Offender Program and the Cognitive Self-Change Program; both Programs conducted by ACT Corrective Services.…
R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…Mr Goboly has no prior criminal record. He is entitled to some leniency as a result. See R v Harrington [2016] ACTCA 10; 11 ACTLR 215 at 234; [113].…
R v NC [2016] ACTSC 111
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…I have also had regard to other recent decisions, including R v NCE [2016] ACTSC 111, R v QI (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188, R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220, R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256, R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52, and R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294.…
R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…decisions, including R v NCE [2016] ACTSC 111, R v QI (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 188, R v CC (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 220, R v Sheedy [2016] ACTSC 256, R v Hunt [2016] ACTSC 52, and R v Kamara [2016] ACTSC 294.…
OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…There was no question of Mr Goboly being in a position of trust: see OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148 at [138]-[144]. There was, apart from the significant age difference, which is relevant, no evidence that Mr Goboly took improper advantage of QQ. None was suggested by the Crown and there is no suggestion the sexual…
R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…g may be an act of indecency, especially if it is full lips to lips, but, while not trivial, it is not the most serious act of indecency : R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [36]. The introduction of Mr Goboly's tongue into QQ's mouth in the December incident did seem to me to make it somewhat more serious, but still a…
R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 115
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…Particular reliance was placed by Ms K Marson, counsel for Mr Goboly, on R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 115, where a young man was sentenced for 11 counts of sexual offending. These included one count of possessing child pornography, and three counts of using a child for the production of child pornography, to which he pl…
Martin v The Queen [2013] VSCA 377
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…The term predatory is often used in contrast to "opportunistic", as in Martin v The Queen [2013] VSCA 377; 238 A Crim R 449 at 475; [109]. It has, as is clear from CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440 at 490; [172], an implication of sexual exploitation, and as suggested in McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121 at…
R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…With respect to his Honour, I cannot accept that last proposition. It is inconsistent with R v CV [2013] ACTCA 22 at [44], where registration on the Child Sex Offender's Register was recognised as having consequences but that it was not extra-curial punishment and that it was not a matter of general deterrence; it…
Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…Thus, as the Court in Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43 at 53; [34], explained, young offenders, being immature, are "more prone to ill-considered or rash decisions". Thus, they "may lack the degree of insight, judgment [sic] and self-control that is possessed by an adult." Further, they "may not fully appreciate the natur…
Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…Consent in such cases is not a matter of mitigation although lack of consent may be a matter of aggravation: Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361. In that case, the Court published a summary of its decision at the beginning of its reasons and this is very helpful to crystallise the issues. The Court said at 364-5; [4]-[7]:…
Goundar v Goddard [2010] ACTSC 56
Citation 20 (Para 1)

…ere were, as noted above (at [55]), numerous character references which appeared to attest to Mr Barker's positive good character ( Goundar v Goddard (2010) 240 FLR 176 at 184; [45]-[47]).…
R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…As I explained in R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24 at [54], an approach approved by the Court of Appeal in R v CV , the Court must consider rehabilitation as an important purpose of sentencing for young offenders.…
R v Scott [2009] VSCA 20
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…In R v Scott (2009) 22 VR 41 at 60; [97]-[98], Neave JA, with whom Redlich JA agreed, Robson AJA making comments to the same effect, said:…
CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25
Citation 23 (Para 1)

…ed in contrast to "opportunistic", as in Martin v The Queen [2013] VSCA 377; 238 A Crim R 449 at 475; [109]. It has, as is clear from CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440 at 490; [172], an implication of sexual exploitation, and as suggested in McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121 at 146; [75], behaviour that renders…
R v Sulemanov [2007] VSCA 288
Citation 24 (Para 1)

…e victim is irrelevant. The point being made by his Honour is well explained by Vincent JA, with whom Redlich and Kellam JJA agreed, in R v Sulemanov [2007] VSCA 288 at [20], as follows:…
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64
Citation 25 (Para 1)

…While, of course, no other sentences are precedents ( Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at 605; [57]), these are helpful to assess the sentencing practice to which, by statute, I am required to have consideration and also the range and approach of courts to sentencing for these offences.…
McGarry v The Queen [2001] HCA 62
Citation 26 (Para 1)

…as, as is clear from CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440 at 490; [172], an implication of sexual exploitation, and as suggested in McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121 at 146; [75], behaviour that renders the perpetrator a danger to the community.…
Ibbs v the Queen [1987] HCA 46
Citation 27 (Para 1)

…serious, the sentence must be proportionate to the precise facts as the offences cover a wide variety of acts and circumstances. See Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447, 451-2.…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 13, 33, 33(1)(za), 7
5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 55(2), 61(2)
3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention