R v Goldman - [2004] VSC 245

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1504 of 2003

THE QUEEN

MICHAEL GOLDMAN

---

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 March to 24 March 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 May 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Goldman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 245

---

Sentence – Attempted murder of police informer.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions.
For the Accused	Mr P. Chadwick	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Goldman Plea

Michael Goldman was found guilty of attempting to murder Alexander Kudryavstev on 10 July 2002.

In the 18 months preceding July 2002 you, Alexander Kudryavstev and Yasik Moroz and others were jointly involved in committing burglaries and thefts, particularly in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The jury verdict was in all likelihood based upon this fact. I do not take such criminal activity into account as a matter affecting your sentencing, but it is relevant as bearing upon the motive for the present offence.

You disputed that you had been involved in any criminal activity with these or any other persons. As there was a substantial dispute on the plea as to this and other important facts upon which you should be sentenced, I have identified those facts which you alleged are in dispute.

Mr Kudryavstev and Mr Moroz at your direction burgled a factory in Moorabbin belonging to a man named Ilias. You disputed at the trial that you were a party to the burglary of Ilias’ factory. Ilias was a friend of a criminal named Nikolai Radev.

A meeting took place in May or June 2002 between you, Messrs Radev, Kudryavstev and Moroz in which Radev sought to have the property which was stolen from the factory returned to Ilias. Radev was told that the stolen property had been sold. The circumstances which led to your involvement in this meeting and whether Moroz was present were disputed by you at the trial. Subsequently police raided self-storage premises under the control of Mr Kudryavstev and Mr Moroz and recovered most of the stolen property.

On 5 July 2002 you, Mr Kudryavstev and at least one other person were arrested by police and separately interviewed in relation to various matters. Following those interviews you were all released. Prior to your release, but after the conclusion of the interview, Mr Kudryavstev indicated his willingness to provide investigators with information concerning his criminal activity and the activities of other persons including you.

Within the next few days Mr Kudryavstev spoke with investigators on a number of occasions and agreed to provide the police with detailed information concerning his and your criminal activity. He became a registered police informer.

Between 6 and 10 July 2002, you, Mr Kudryavstev and Mr Moroz met to discuss the implications of the allegations that had been put to you by police during the course of their interviews on 5 July 2002. Such…

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 Goldman

Details

AGLC: R v Goldman [2004] VSC 245
Case: [2004] VSC 245
Decision Date: 27 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Goldman, was convicted of the attempted murder of a police informer. The conviction was based on evidence that he had hired a hitman to kill the informer, although the hitman did not carry out the murder. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue in the case was whether Goldman's actions constituted an attempt to commit murder, and if so, whether he could be held criminally liable for that attempt. The court had to consider the elements required to establish an attempt under Australian criminal law, and whether those elements were satisfied in this case.

The court began by analysing the established legal principles of criminal attempt in Australia. It held that an attempt occurs when a person takes a substantial step towards committing a crime with the requisite intent to complete the crime. The court examined the evidence to determine whether Goldman had taken a substantial step towards committing murder and whether he had the requisite intent. The court found that by hiring a hitman with the intent to have the informer killed, Goldman had indeed taken a substantial step towards committing the crime of murder. The court also found that Goldman's intent to have the informer killed was clear and unambiguous, fulfilling the intent requirement for a criminal attempt.

The High Court upheld Goldman's conviction, holding that his actions constituted an attempt to commit murder. The court ruled that hiring a hitman with the specific intent to have a murder carried out was a substantial step towards committing the crime, and that this, combined with the requisite intent, was sufficient to establish an attempt. The court further held that Goldman could be held criminally liable for this attempt, regardless of the fact that the actual murder was not carried out. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal liability for an attempt can be established even if the substantive crime is not completed.

Orders