R v Goode - [2025] NSWDC 236

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Goode [2025] NSWDC 236
Hearing dates: 5 February 2025
Date of orders: 5 February 2025
Decision date: 05 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 10 months

Catchwords:
CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Possession
CRIME — Bestiality material — Possession
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis — Advanced age — Health issues — Time in custody onerous

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140
Mouscasv R [2008] NSWCCA 181
R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 8
R v Roy (No 3) [2005] ACTSC 5
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267

Texts Cited:
P Mizzi, T Gotsis, P Poletti, “Sentencing offenders convicted of child pornography and child abuse material offences” (September 2010) Monograph 34 Judicial Commission of NSW

Category: Sentence
Parties: Brian Goode (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Z Khan (for the offender)
Solicitors:
RMB Lawyers (for the offender)
J Loosely for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/419933

JUDGMENT – ex tempore Revised

Agreed Facts

Brian Goode was born in 1943.
In October 2023 police executed a search warrant at his home. The warrant authorised police to search all his electronic devices capable of capturing or storage of data. He cooperated with police. Police observed during the execution of the search warrant that the offender was in the process of downloading a large quantity of files from an ‘eMule’ peer to peer file sharing application. I was unfamiliar with this application, but its operation was summarised by McCallum J in R v Roy (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 5 at [39].
The material’s ‘tags’ indicated it was possibly child abuse material or bestiality material. A number of forensic examinations were conducted on hard drive storage devices which he had connected to his computer. He had a number of such storage devices.
An analysis conducted by police indicated that the offender possessed at least 180 videos and 276 images depicting child abuse material connected to his desktop computer. They had also found that he possessed at least 1,800 videos and 200 images depicting bestiality material connected to his desktop computer.
Other child abuse material was found on electronic storage devices. Other bestiality material was found on electronic storage devices. The review of the storage devices contained on the computer is summarised in Annexure A to the Agreed Facts and notes the type of videos or images. I was not required to view the child abuse material. The summaries provided note that the material depicted, young, sometimes very young…

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 Goode

Details

AGLC: R v Goode [2025] NSWDC 236
Case: [2025] NSWDC 236
Decision Date: 05 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Goode, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had been found guilty of possessing both child abuse material and bestiality content. The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which mitigating factors, including the defendant's previously unblemished record and plea of guilty, should influence the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence, balanced against the defendant's advanced age and health issues.

The High Court considered that while the possession of such material was serious and warranted a punitive response, the mitigating factors presented a compelling case for leniency. The court emphasised the importance of the instinctive synthesis approach in sentencing, weighing all relevant factors to achieve a just outcome. The defendant's lack of prior criminal history and early guilty plea were given significant weight, as was the fact that the defendant had already spent considerable time in custody. The court also acknowledged the defendant's age and health conditions, which made the prospect of imprisonment particularly onerous.

Ultimately, the High Court determined that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of one year and ten months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of ten months. This sentence aimed to strike a balance between the need for punishment and deterrence, and the recognition of the mitigating factors present in the case. The court's decision was a nuanced consideration of all the relevant legal principles and the unique circumstances of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 10 months

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Goode [2025] NSWDC 236
Hearing dates:	5 February 2025
Date of orders:	5 February 2025
Decision date:	05 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months with a non-parole period of 10 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Child sex offences — Child abuse material — Possession CRIME — Bestiality material — Possession SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Plea of guilty SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Form 1 offences — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis — Advanced age — Health issues — Time in custody onerous
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Minehan v R [2010] NSWCCA 140 Mouscasv R [2008] NSWCCA 181 R v Booth [2009] NSWCCA 8 R v Roy (No 3) [2005] ACTSC 5 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267
Texts Cited:	P Mizzi, T Gotsis, P Poletti, “Sentencing offenders convicted of child pornography and child abuse material offences” (September 2010) Monograph 34 Judicial Commission of NSW
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Brian Goode (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Z Khan (for the offender) Solicitors: RMB Lawyers (for the offender) J Loosely for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/419933