Legal Research
Cases
R v Godfrey

R v Godfrey

Case [2023] NSWSC 1312 3 November 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Godfrey [2023] NSWSC 1312
Hearing dates: 13 October 2023
Date of orders: 3 November 2023
Decision date: 03 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
For the manslaughter of Giuseppe Pagano at Haymarket on 4 April 2021, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months commencing on 4 April 2021 and expiring on 3 January 2026 with a non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months expiring on 3 February 2024.

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – manslaughter on the basis of self-defence with excessive force – where offender applied choke hold – plea of guilty – difficult and traumatic upbringing – substance use disorder – strong prospects of rehabilitation – remorse demonstrated

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(b), 421
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A(g), 30E

Cases Cited:
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Bean [2022] NSWSC 783
R v Black (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 77
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Davis [2021] NSWSC 235
R v Holmes (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 570
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v MD; R v BM; R v NA; R v JT (2005) 156 A Crim R 372; [2005] NSWCCA 342
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Stanley (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 74
Veen v R (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Connor Norman Godfrey
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hay (Rex)
M W Smith (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Rex)
Grover Law (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/93122
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

On 4 April 2021, Connor Godfrey (“the offender”) killed Giuseppe (“Joseph”) Pagano. The offender killed Mr Pagano by applying a Brazilian jiu-jitsu hold known as the “rear naked choke” to him. As the name suggests, the application of the move involves choking the other person for a period to subdue that person. The offender applied the choke hold to Mr Pagano for an extended period, leading to his death, in circumstances which I will detail in this sentence judgment.
Following Mr Pagano’s death, the offender was charged with murder. He entered a plea of not guilty to murder.
The trial before me and a jury commenced on 22 March 2023. On 11 April 2023, I discharged the jury…

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 Godfrey

Details

AGLC: R v Godfrey [2023] NSWSC 1312
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1312
Decision Date: 03 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Godfrey, the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter, specifically arguing that the offence was committed in self-defence, albeit with excessive force. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Godfrey, considering the mitigating factors of his difficult and traumatic upbringing, his substance use disorder, and his strong prospects for rehabilitation, as well as his demonstrated remorse. The Crown accepted that Godfrey's actions were in response to a perceived threat, though the use of a choke hold was deemed excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was to assess the appropriate balance between the need for punishment and the prospect of rehabilitation in Godfrey's case. The court was required to weigh the mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence, particularly the excessive use of force that led to the victim's death. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the mitigating factors were sufficient to warrant a non-custodial sentence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged the severe consequences of Godfrey's actions but also recognised the significant personal challenges he faced, including a traumatic childhood and substance abuse issues. The court found that while the use of a choke hold was excessive, Godfrey's remorse and the potential for rehabilitation were compelling factors. Ultimately, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, given the balance of these considerations. The court imposed a sentence that included supervision, rehabilitation programs, and conditions aimed at addressing Godfrey's substance use disorder.

The final orders included a suspended sentence with specific conditions to be met, such as participation in rehabilitation programs, regular drug testing, and mandatory counselling. Godfrey was also required to attend anger management courses and refrain from substance use. The court's decision emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for Godfrey to lead a law-abiding life in the future, provided he adhered to the imposed conditions.

Orders