R v Goodge - [2019] ACTSC 297

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Goodge
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 297
Hearing Dates:	16 October and 13 December 2019
DecisionDates:	18 October and 13 December 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [50] and [52]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated robbery – making a demand with a threat to endanger health, safety or physical wellbeing – intensive correction order – where restorative justice is appropriate
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 32(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 78 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310
Cases Cited:	Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 R v XXL [2019] ACTSC 294
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Sunnrai Goodge (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel D Sahu Khan (Crown) J Moffett (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 11 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Reasons given on 16 October 2019

The offender, Sunnrai Goodge, has pleaded guilty to two offences:

(a)one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), committed on 2 July 2018, the maximum penalty for which is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of 2500 penalty units or both (CC2018/10561); and
(b)one count of making a demand with a threat to endanger the health, safety or physical wellbeing of a person contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), committed on 12 July 2018, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years’ imprisonment (CC2018/10518).

His co-offender in relation to the first offence is XXL who is being dealt with at the same time: see R v XXL [2019] ACTSC 294.

Facts

The facts in relation to Mr Goodge’s offending were agreed and are, in summary, as follows.

In January 2018, the victim, [ML], entered into an agreement with Mr Goodge who was known to him as ‘Sunni’. The agreement was for a loan of $2300 with which the victim was to purchase a vehicle.

The victim sold the vehicle and obtained a bank loan for $13,000 to purchase a white Audi S3 sedan. The victim continued to repay Mr Goodge for the debt and as at July 2018 he had an outstanding debt of approximately $1500. The victim was working as a cleaner and was in the process of saving money to pay off the remainder of the debt.

At some time in June 2018, Mr Goodge heard that the victim was working and had purchased a new motor vehicle even though he still owed him money.

On 1 July 2018, Mr Goodge contacted the victim on Facebook Messenger using his personal profile '[redacted]'. Mr Goodge sent the following message to the victim:

I've added it all up & doubled it just for the FUCKING STOOGE JEW. Yeh that’s you ( through&through. A if you think you are going to just pay me 900. I WILL COME THERERIGHT NOW YOUSHIT TALKING STUPID FUCKING COCK HEAD & I’LL PUT…

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 Goodge

Details

AGLC: R v Goodge [2019] ACTSC 297
Case: [2019] ACTSC 297
Decision Date: 13 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Goodge involved the defendant, Goodge, and the prosecution. Goodge was charged with aggravated robbery, where he made a demand to a victim with a threat to endanger their health, safety, or physical wellbeing. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant sought to argue that a more restorative justice approach was appropriate and that a traditional punitive sentence might be excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing approach should incorporate a restorative justice perspective, given the nature of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court was tasked with balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential benefits of a restorative justice process. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an intensive correction order would be appropriate given the defendant's profile and the circumstances of the offence.

The court found that the aggravating factors of the offence warranted a custodial sentence but recognised the value of restorative justice in certain circumstances. The court acknowledged that a restorative justice approach could be beneficial, particularly if it could provide meaningful reparations to the victim and facilitate the defendant's rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an intensive correction order would be suitable, allowing for the defendant's rehabilitation while also providing a form of reparation to the victim. The court concluded that this approach would best serve the interests of justice in this case.

The court ordered that the defendant be subject to an intensive correction order, with specific conditions to be outlined. The order was intended to address the defendant's rehabilitation needs and to provide a form of reparation to the victim, reflecting the court's balanced approach to sentencing in this matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50] and [52]

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.