Legal Research
Cases
R v Godden

R v Godden

Case [2005] NSWCCA 160 29 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
REGINA v. GODDEN [2005] NSWCCA 160

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 8 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

29 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hunt AJA at 1; Grove J at 2; Hall J at 3

DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed and sentence imposed in the District Court quashed. In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced, taking into account the offence on the Form 1, to imprisonment for two years and two months, commencing on 10 June 2004 and expiring on 9 August 2006, with a non-parole period of one year and three months, commencing on 10 June 2004 and expiring on 9 September 2005. The appellant ordered released to parole on 9 September 2005.

CATCHWORDS:
Sentencing - appeal against sentence - sentencing in cultivation cases - severity of sentence - whether sentence was unduly harsh - apparently excessive sentence - personal or subjective factors.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Drug (Misuse & Trafficking) Act 1985
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Summerville (CCA, unreported 9 September 1993)
Westropp (CCA, unreported 14 April 1993)
Daoulas (CCA, unreported 28 October 1993)
Field (CCA, unreported 3 May 1996)
Downie & Dandy (Victorian Court of Appeal, unreported 27 June 1997)
Puke (CCA, unreported 12 September 1997)
Osenkowski (1982) 5 A. Crim. R. 394
Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Clark (CCA, unreported 15 March 1990)
Dopson (CCA, unreported 10 April 2003

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
GODDEN, Earl Robert

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3225

COUNSEL:
Crown: W. Dawe, QC.
App: M. Ramage, QC.

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S. Kavanagh
App: Fishburn Watson O'Brien

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/51/0105

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Freeman, DCJ.

2004/3225

HUNT, AJA.
GROVE, J.
HALL, J.
FRIDAY 29 APRIL 2005

REGINA v. EARL ROBERT GODDEN

Judgment

1 HUNT, AJA: I agree with Hall, J.

2 GROVE, J: I agree with Hall, J.

3 HALL, J: By application dated 28 June 2004, the applicant, Earl Robert Godden seeks the leave of the Court to appeal a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Freeman in the District Court sitting at Coffs Harbour on Thursday 10 June 2004.

4 On 2 February 2004, the applicant pleaded guilty to the following offence:-

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

5 By amendment to the indictment, the offence charged was stated to have occurred between 13 October 2002 and 20 December 2002.

6 A further offence of possess prohibited drug (280 grams of cannabis leaf) was taken into account on a Form 1.

7 The sentence imposed by Judge Freeman was as follows:-

Imprisonment for a total sentence of three years, two months commencing on 10 June 2004 and expiring on 9 August 2007.

Non-parole period of two years expiring on 9 June 2006.

Additional term of one year, two months commencing on 10 June 2006 and expiring on 9 August…

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 Godden

Details

AGLC: R v Godden [2005] NSWCCA 160
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 160
Decision Date: 29 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Godden involves an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the defendant for cultivation offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant challenged the harshness of the sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was unduly severe, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the cultivation case, and whether it was excessively harsh or influenced by personal or subjective factors.

The court considered the factors relevant to sentencing in cultivation cases, including the scale of the operation, the defendant's role, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The court assessed whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence and whether it was influenced by inappropriate considerations. The court also evaluated the proportionality of the sentence in relation to similar cases and the principles of sentencing in cultivation offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentence was not unduly harsh and did not result from inappropriate or subjective factors. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct. The court emphasised the importance of considering the scale and nature of the cultivation operation and the defendant's role in it. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant's appeal against the severity of the sentence was therefore unsuccessful. The court's decision reinforces the principles of sentencing in cultivation cases and the importance of proportionality and objective considerations in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders