TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 8 of 2003 (20219616)
DELIVERED: 12 NOVEMBER 2003
HEARING DATES: 29 OCTOBER 2003
JUDGMENT OF: ANGEL ACJ, MILDREN J and PRIESTLEY AJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:R Wild QC
Respondent: M O’Reilly
Solicitors:
Appellant:Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: CAALAS
Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID Number: ang200310
Number of pages: 8
ang200310
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN
The Queen v Goodwin [2003] NTCCA 9
No. CA 8 of 2003
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Appellant
AND:
NOELIE GOODWIN
Respondent
CORAM: ANGEL ACJ, MILDREN J and PRIESTLEY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 12 November 2003)
THE COURT:
This is a Crown Appeal as of right pursuant to s 414(1)(c) Criminal Code NT against a sentence of three years and four months imprisonment suspended after 12 months on conditions for sexual intercourse without consent.
On 21 March 2003 the respondent pleaded guilty before the Supreme Court to a charge that on 26 December 2002 at Yulara he had sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent contrary to s 192(3) Criminal Code NT for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
The admitted Crown facts in support of the charge as found by the learned sentencing Judge are as follows:
“The victim in the matter is a 25 year old international student. She attends university in Melbourne. She decided to travel within Australia, and on 23 December 2002, arrived in Alice Springs as part of a tour. Plans were made to travel to Uluru and on 26 December 2002, she arrived at Yulara.
The victim was part of a tour group. They went to Ayers Rock where the victim decided to do a full walk around the base of the rock. The offender in the matter at this time was taking his 3 year old nephew for a swim in one of the waterholes near the base of the rock.
The offender approached the victim and they struck up a conversation. The offender offered to show the victim waterholes in the area. As he was with the 3 year old, she did not fear for her safety. They walked to a waterhole and were there only for a short while.
She at this time was feeling a little uneasy as she had been told not to stray from the walking tracks. The offender led her to a second waterhole where he decided to swim. He posed for the victim who took a photograph of him and the 3 year old using her digital camera.
The victim was not up to swimming, and decided to rejoin the tour group. She started walking off and the offender emerged out of the water and chased her. With both hands across her shoulders, the offender turned her round to face him and tried to…
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 Goodwin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Goodwin [2003] NTCCA 9
Case
[2003] NTCCA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by the Crown against a sentence imposed on the respondent, Mr. Goodwin, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Mr. Goodwin had pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving occasioning death. The Crown contended that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, suspended upon the respondent entering into a recognisance of $1000 to be of good behaviour for two years, was manifestly inadequate.
The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a suspended sentence for the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death, and if so, whether the sentence was so lenient as to warrant intervention on appeal. The Court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for such offences, including the gravity of the offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the impact of the offence on the victim's family.
The Court acknowledged that while a suspended sentence might be appropriate in some circumstances, the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death generally warrants a custodial sentence, particularly given the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The judges considered the specific facts of the case, including the degree of danger involved in Mr. Goodwin's driving and the tragic consequences of his actions. They concluded that the sentencing judge had placed too much emphasis on mitigating factors and had not given sufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.
Consequently, the Full Court allowed the Crown's appeal, quashed the original sentence, and resentenced Mr. Goodwin to 12 months imprisonment, to be served wholly in custody.