R v Goodall - [2000] VSCA 106

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 14 of 1999

THE QUEEN

JOHN HENRY GOODALL

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 May 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 106

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Murder, rape and attempted murder – Two victims – Early plea of guilty and other mitigatory factors – 19 years’ imprisonment for murder not manifestly excessive – But 26 year total effective sentence manifestly excessive where offender aged 48 on arrest – R. v. Donnelly [1998] 1 V.R. 645 at 648 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs. C. Quin	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr. C. Pearson	Mulcahy Mendelson & Round, Solicitors

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Batt, J. to deliver the first judgment in this application.

BATT, J.A.:

For some eight and a half years until early May 1998 the applicant, John Henry Goodall, who was at the time of the three offences now in question aged 48, lived with a woman whom I shall call Mrs W at her premises at Campbell Road, Riddells Creek. Also residing there during the latter part of that period was Mrs W's mother, whom I shall call Mrs R and who was aged 75 years. During its last nine months or so, if not longer, the relationship between the applicant and Mrs W deteriorated to the stage that Mrs W desired it to end and asked the applicant to leave the Campbell Road premises, which he did some four weeks before he committed the three offences. A significant problem in the relationship was the applicant's misplaced and pathological jealousy of Mrs W. From about August 1997 he was obsessed that she was going to return to her former husband. From that time onwards the applicant, as the sentencing judge said, entered a downward spiral. He was very possessive. His jealousy grew and grew. His life deteriorated. He commenced abusing alcohol. He became dysfunctional in his personal life and employment. He developed a severe, but not a psychotic, depressive illness.

In the end the applicant decided to kill Mrs W and himself. Thus it was that at about 5 a.m. on Friday 5 June 1998 the applicant left the home in nearby Gisborne to which he had moved on leaving the Campbell Road premises and, taking with him his semi-automatic .22 calibre rifle, some ammunition, and some beer, drove to just off Mrs W's premises. He got out of his car and kept the house under observation, at first from a distance and then from closer range. He had apparently had some alcohol during the night and he drank some more while outside the house.

At about 7.25 a.m. Mrs W drove away from the premises with her adult son to take him to the Riddells Creek railway station. She was away for only ten minutes. As…

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 Goodall

Details

AGLC: R v Goodall [2000] VSCA 106
Case: [2000] VSCA 106
Decision Date: 31 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Goodall, the appellant stood before the court facing charges of murder, rape and attempted murder, all committed against two victims. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these heinous crimes, considering the early plea of guilty and other mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court included whether the 19-year imprisonment sentence for the murder was excessively lenient and whether the total effective sentence of 26 years was manifestly excessive. The court considered the offender's age at the time of arrest, which was 48 years old, and the principle in R. v. Donnelly [1998] 1 V.R. 645, which held that a sentence could be considered manifestly excessive if it did not take into account the offender's age.

The court concluded that the 19-year imprisonment sentence for murder was not manifestly excessive, given the mitigating factors presented. However, the court found that the total effective sentence of 26 years was manifestly excessive, particularly when considering the offender's age at the time of arrest. The court took into account the principle in Donnelly and determined that the total sentence was disproportionately harsh.

The court ordered that the total effective sentence be reduced, taking into account the offender's age and other mitigating factors. The specific reduction in sentence was not detailed in the text.

Orders