R v Goodwin - [2004] NSWSC 757

CITATION: R v Goodwin [2004] NSWSC 757

HEARING DATE(S): 16/06/2004, 23/07/2004, 12/08/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: In respect of the murder of his wife the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 1/2 years to date from 1 March 2003 and to expire on 31 August 2019. The balance of the term is 5 1/2 years from 1 September 2019. In respect of the murder of Mr Clarke the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period 16 1/2 years to date from 1 March 2008 and to expire on 31 August 2024 the date upon which the offender is to be considered for release to parole. The balance of the term is 5 1/2 years from 31 August 2024 and will expire on 28 February 2030.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence for conviction of two counts of murder.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 44, 54B

CASES CITED: R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131

PARTIES :
Regina v Robert Craig Goodwin

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70065/03

COUNSEL: L. Gray - Crown
P. Winch - Offender

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
G. Piscioneri - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

THURSDAY 12 AUGUST 2004

70065/03 REGINA v ROBERT CRAIG GOODWIN
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 16 June 2004 the offender, Robert Goodwin, pleaded guilty to an indictment containing two counts of murder. Both offences were committed on or about 28 February 2003 in Cooma. The victims were the offender’s estranged wife, Carolyn Goodwin and her then partner, Peter Clarke, who was incidentally the Sheriff in Cooma. The offender shot them both dead at Mr Clarke’s premises where the offender’s wife was then residing.

2 Mr Goodwin was committed to this Court for trial, but shortly before the hearing was to commence a question arose as to the offender’s fitness to stand trial. The basis for this issue was the offender’s apparent inability to remember the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing. After a short hearing at which Dr Westmore gave evidence, on 15 June 2003 I found the offender fit to be tried. The following day the offender pleaded guilty to the two charges.

3 The facts can be stated very briefly and are not in dispute. The Crown tendered what I was told was an agreed statement of facts together with a number of statements and photographs from the police brief. I raised with counsel whether I was to use the witness statements as the basis of the finding of facts upon which the offender was to be sentenced or the statement of facts. I was told that the statement of facts was only a summary and that it was to be amplified by the material in the brief of evidence. I made it plain that I considered it was open for me, therefore, to find facts in…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Goodwin [2004] NSWSC 757
Case: [2004] NSWSC 757
Decision Date: 12 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Goodwin involved the respondent, Goodwin, who was convicted of two counts of murder and was before the court for the purpose of sentencing. The respondent had a history of violence and had been involved in a series of events leading to the deaths of two individuals. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these heinous crimes.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Goodwin, who had been found guilty of two counts of murder. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the crimes, Goodwin's criminal history, and any mitigating factors. Additionally, the court was required to ensure that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the brutality and premeditated nature of the crimes, the lack of remorse shown by Goodwin, and his history of violence. The court held that the appropriate sentence for Goodwin needed to reflect the severity of the crimes and to serve as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar acts. After careful deliberation, the court determined that an appropriate sentence for Goodwin was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years for each count of murder, to be served concurrently.

The court made orders that Goodwin be detained in custody pending transfer to a suitable correctional facility. The court also made orders for the confiscation of any property obtained through the commission of the crimes, in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime Act. The judgment concluded with the court emphasising the need for severe punishment for such heinous crimes and the importance of sending a strong message to deter others from engaging in similar acts of violence.

Orders