Medium Neutral Citation: R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
Hearing dates: 8 September 2023
Date of orders: 8 September 2023
Decision date: 08 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 2 years and 11 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity — Participate in criminal group
SENTENCING — Penalties — Aggregate imprisonment sentence — Should sentence be served subject to Intensive Correction Orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences ‘clear the slate’ — Plea of guilty — Objective seriousness — Quasi-custody in rehabilitation centre
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure —Accumulation of sentences — Instinctive synthesis — Pre-sentence reports
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Assaulted in custody — Drug addiction — Homelessness — Mental health issues — Positive response to full time rehabilitation — Pro-social bonds — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 52; [2010] HCA 45
Owen v R [2022] NSWCCA 214
R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76
R v Consigli [2023] NSWDC 355
R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149
R v Locchi (1991) 22 NSWLR 309
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73
R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184
R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Truss v R [2008] NSWCCA 325

Texts Cited:
D Ritchie, “Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence" (April 2011) Sentencing Advisory Council Victoria 1
NSW Bar Association, “Drug Law Reform” (November 2014) 24 Criminal Law Committee Discussion Paper 1
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “World Drug Report” (2009) 1
W Wan, D Weatherburn, G Wardlaw, V Sarafidis and G Sara, “Supply-Side Reduction Policy and Drug-Related Harm” (2014) 486 Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Australian Government Institute of Criminology 1

Category: Sentence
Parties: Mathew Lawrence Maurice Roy Golding (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Fraser (for the offender)
Solicitors:
J Walshe for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Morrisons Law (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2022/112650

JUDGMENT – eX tempore revised

Introduction

In March and April 2022, Mathew Golding possessed, for the purpose of supply, 832 grams of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine. Golding purchased from an up-line supplier in Sydney and on-supplied to customers in the local community.
A police operation using covert surveillance techniques revealed…

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 Golding

Details

AGLC: R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
Case: [2023] NSWDC 493
Decision Date: 08 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Golding, the appellant was convicted of drug offences involving the supply of a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, and of participating in a criminal group. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues involved the appropriate penalty for the drug offences and the application of the aggregate sentence to be served under Intensive Correction Orders.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty for the appellant's drug offences, taking into account the objective seriousness of the crime, the appellant's plea of guilty, and the need for deterrence. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the sentence should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order and whether the sentence could be aggregated with any prior sentences. The court also had to consider the appellant's personal circumstances, including his drug addiction, homelessness, and mental health issues, in determining the appropriate penalty.

The court found that the objective seriousness of the offences warranted a substantial penalty, but also noted the appellant's guilty plea and his positive response to full-time rehabilitation in a rehabilitation centre. The court also considered the appellant's pro-social bonds and special circumstances, such as his assault in custody and his drug addiction. The court ultimately determined that an aggregate imprisonment sentence of 2 years and 11 months was appropriate, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.

The court ordered that the aggregate imprisonment sentence of 2 years and 11 months be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. The court also noted that the sentence should be aggregated with any prior sentences, and that the appellant's personal circumstances should be taken into account in determining the appropriate penalty. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to balance the appellant's personal circumstances with the objective seriousness of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 2 years and 11 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order

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 Golding [2023] NSWDC 493

Most Recent Citation

Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Hallam [2025] NSWDC 375
Citation 1 (Para 69)

…In R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493 a charge of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, being a rolled-up charge involving 12 discrete supplies, together with an offence of participating in a criminal group resulted in an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 11 months, similarly to be served by way of…
R v Hagoss [2024] NSWDC 678
Citation 2 (Para 116)

…ve read and considered R v Kelly [2020] NSWDC 232; R v Gin [2021] NSWDC 755; R v Hamilton [2022] NSWDC 229; R v Dowdell [2022] NSWDC 529; R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493.…
Sikaloski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 387
Citation 3 (Para 8)

…The circumstances here are unusual, but it was claimed that they fell within the fifth of the six propositions carefully formulated by Wells J in R v Golding (1980) 3 A Crim R 26, at 36: "Where a prisoner is shown to have been an informer (whether in the matter in which he has been convicted or some associated matter…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184
Citation 1 (Para 16)

…e lies on a hypothetical range do not, so far as I am concerned, have much inherent meaning. One has to focus on the particulars of the case: R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184 at [35].…
R v Consigli [2023] NSWDC 355
Citation 2 (Para 73)

…ly might receive and ICO goes to gaol, as even if an ICO was available, full-time custody was required: see most recently my decision of R v Consigli [2023] NSWDC 355.…
Stanley v DPP (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Citation 3 (Para 59)

…, considerations of community safety and the forward-thinking approach spoken of by the High Court in Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3, would compel an order that this matter be served in the community, subject to intensive correction.…
Owen v R [2022] NSWCCA 214
Citation 4 (Para 16)

…Judges are obliged to resolve disputed issues as to where a particular offence falls on the spectrum of objective seriousness: Owen v R [2022] NSWCCA 214. However, labels that nominate a point at which an offence lies on a hypothetical range do not, so far as I am concerned, have much inherent meaning. One has to fo…
Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82
Citation 5 (Para 60)

…mpose Intensive Correction Orders (ICOs) for cumulative sentences, an aggregate sentence attracts that option: R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264; Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82. Even if there is an anomaly that one of the indicted sentences is more than 2 years: Abel ; R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73.…
R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73
Citation 6 (Para 60)

…llen [2018] NSWCCA 264; Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82. Even if there is an anomaly that one of the indicted sentences is more than 2 years: Abel ; R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73.…
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
Citation 7 (Para 60)

…entence, while I could not impose Intensive Correction Orders (ICOs) for cumulative sentences, an aggregate sentence attracts that option: R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264; Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82. Even if there is an anomaly that one of the indicted sentences is more than 2 years: Abel ; R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73.…
Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Citation 8

…General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 52; [2010] HCA 45 Owen v R [2022] NSWCCA 214 R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76 R v Consigli [2023] NSWDC…
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Citation 9 (Para 70)

…d a duty to fit the sentence to the offence and the offender; and every offender is different: Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 52; [2010] HCA 45.…
Jones v The Queen [2010] NZCA 119
Citation 10 (Para 70)

…ual case, Judges have a discretion and a duty to fit the sentence to the offence and the offender; and every offender is different: Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 52; [2010] HCA 45.…
Truss v R [2008] NSWCCA 325
Citation 11 (Para 63)

…reduction is the need to factor into the sentencing exercise the restriction on the offender’s liberty during the period of the program: Truss v R [2008] NSWCCA 325 at [22]. It is a question of fact and degree, but I am prepared to allow, and the Crown accept, that it has been productive, it has been strenuous, and…
R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342
Citation 12 (Para 62)

…n be taken into account if, as here, they have quasi-custodial conditions: R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76; R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362; R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342.…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 13 (Para 21)

…ence and retribution for the crime for sentence: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [39] to [42].…
R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362
Citation 14 (Para 62)

…pent in residential programs can be taken into account if, as here, they have quasi-custodial conditions: R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76; R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362; R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342.…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 15 (Para 29)

…inued to do it. It enables me to understand his state of mind and his lack of capacity at the relevant time to exercise sound judgment: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149.…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 16 (Para 29)

…enables me to understand his state of mind and his lack of capacity at the relevant time to exercise sound judgment: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149.…
R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76
Citation 17 (Para 62)

…year in rehabilitation. Time spent in residential programs can be taken into account if, as here, they have quasi-custodial conditions: R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76; R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362; R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342.…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 9)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 9)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 9)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Golding [2023] NSWDC 493
Hearing dates:	8 September 2023
Date of orders:	8 September 2023
Decision date:	08 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 2 years and 11 months to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Large commercial quantity — Participate in criminal group SENTENCING — Penalties — Aggregate imprisonment sentence — Should sentence be served subject to Intensive Correction Orders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences ‘clear the slate’ — Plea of guilty — Objective seriousness — Quasi-custody in rehabilitation centre SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure —Accumulation of sentences — Instinctive synthesis — Pre-sentence reports SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Assaulted in custody — Drug addiction — Homelessness — Mental health issues — Positive response to full time rehabilitation — Pro-social bonds — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Abel v R [2020] NSWCCA 82 Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 52; [2010] HCA 45 Owen v R [2022] NSWCCA 214 R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76 R v Consigli [2023] NSWDC 355 R v Delaney [2003] NSWCCA 342 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; (1999) 106 A Crim R 149 R v Locchi (1991) 22 NSWLR 309 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Qi [2019] NSWCCA 73 R v R E [2023] NSWCCA 184 R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 362 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3 Truss v R [2008] NSWCCA 325
Texts Cited:	D Ritchie, “Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence" (April 2011) Sentencing Advisory Council Victoria 1 NSW Bar Association, “Drug Law Reform” (November 2014) 24 Criminal Law Committee Discussion Paper 1 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “World Drug Report” (2009) 1 W Wan, D Weatherburn, G Wardlaw, V Sarafidis and G Sara, “Supply-Side Reduction Policy and Drug-Related Harm” (2014) 486 Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Australian Government Institute of Criminology 1
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Mathew Lawrence Maurice Roy Golding (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: S Fraser (for the offender) Solicitors: J Walshe for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Morrisons Law (for the offender)
File Number(s):	2022/112650