R v Godfrey - [2011] VSC 179

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0023 of 2011

THE QUEEN

NICOLE GODFREY

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Godfrey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 179

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Pervert the course of public justice – Guilty plea – Making false statements to police – Discount in sentence for the giving of an undertaking to give evidence in another trial

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose SC with Mr B. Sonnett	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Danos

HIS HONOUR:

Nicole Godfrey, on Wednesday 20 April 2011 you pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The charge was expressed as follows:

“between the 29th day of October 2009 and the 2nd day of November 2009 with intent to pervert the course of public justice did acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she knowingly made false statements to investigating police as to the whereabouts at particular times of John Leslie Coombes who was being investigated for the murder of Raechel Betts.”

It is to be noted that the allegations against you were relatively minor as to both time and conduct.

The circumstances which gave rise to you being charged with this offence were opined by Mr P. Rose SC who appeared with Mr B. Sonnett for the prosecution. The written version of the opening became Exhibit One on the plea.

On Wednesday 12 August 2009 at some time after midnight, John Coombes and Raechel Betts came to the house you were renting at Phillip Island. You were in bed when they arrived and did not get up to greet them.

Coombes had previously arranged with you to come to the house. Eventually Ms Betts went to one of the bedrooms presumably to sleep. She was joined there by Coombes. She said something which upset Coombes who then strangled her. Coombes then took the body to the bathroom and over the next 12 hours cut up the body of Ms Betts. He placed body parts and clothing into garbage bags. In the early hours of Thursday 13 August he used your car to transport the remains of Ms Betts to the Newhaven Pier where he threw the body parts into the fast moving current. He also threw the clothing and knives into the water.

Coombes returned to your house and used powerful bleach based cleaner to clean the bathroom. He left your house, after saying goodbye, and returned to his house in Preston.

On 16 August 2009 the leg of the deceased was found on the Newhaven Beach and on 3 September 2009 other body parts of the deceased were recovered on the Ventnor Beach.

You knew when the body parts were recovered that they were from the person Coombes had killed…

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 [2011] VSC 179
Case: [2011] VSC 179
Decision Date: 29 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Godfrey, the appellant, was convicted of perverting the course of public justice by making false statements to the police. Godfrey appealed his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal focused on whether the magistrate had erred in imposing a sentence that did not account for Godfrey's guilty plea and undertaking to give evidence in another trial.

The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate discount in Godfrey's sentence for his guilty plea and his undertaking to testify in another trial. The court had to determine if the magistrate had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Additionally, the court examined whether the magistrate had adequately considered the factors that warranted a discount in the sentence.

The court found that the magistrate had erred in not sufficiently discounting Godfrey's sentence for his guilty plea and undertaking to testify. The court held that the magistrate should have applied a more significant discount, reflecting the benefits to the administration of justice provided by Godfrey's cooperation. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the mitigating factors. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Local Court for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the conviction be upheld but that the sentence be set aside. The matter was to be remitted to the Local Court for re-sentencing, with directions to appropriately discount the sentence for Godfrey's guilty plea and undertaking to testify.

Orders