R v Goodwin

[2025] QCA 151

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Goodwin [2025] QCA 151
PARTIES:	R v GOODWIN, John William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 261 of 2024 DC No 939 of 2023 DC No 542 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 6 September 2023 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	21 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 August 2025
JUDGES:	Boddice, Brown and Bradley JJA
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time within which to appeal sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to six counts of observations or recordings in breach of privacy, one count of possessing child exploitation material and 18 summary charges, being 16 charges of observations or recordings in breach of privacy and two charges of observations or recording in breach of privacy (genital or anal region) – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years for each of the observations or recordings in breach of privacy counts and summary charges and imprisonment for 2 years’ 6 months for the count of possessing child exploitation material – where it was declared that 793 days in pre-sentence custody be time served under the sentences – where a parole eligibility date was set at 6 September 2023 – where the application for extension of time was filed after the deadline to apply for leave to appeal against sentence had expired – where the applicant’s proposed ground of appeal enjoys no prospect of persuading the Court that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – whether the application for extension of time should be granted
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D Nardone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. BODDICE JA:  On 6 September 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to six counts of observations or recordings in breach of privacy, one count of possessing child exploitation material and 18 summary charges, being 16 charges of observations or recordings in breach of privacy and two charges of observations or recordings in breach of privacy – genital or anal region.

2. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years for each of the observations or recordings in breach of privacy counts and summary charges, including the two of observations or recordings in breach of privacy – genital or anal region and imprisonment for 2 years’ 6 months for the count of possessing child exploitation material.  It was ordered that the sentences be served cumulatively.  It was declared that 793 days in pre-sentence custody be time served under the sentences.  A parole eligibility date was set at 6 September 2023.

3. The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to make an application for leave to appeal sentence.  The applicant submits that an extension of time ought to be granted as he was unaware of any time limit and was focused on obtaining parole in accordance with his eligibility date.

4. If an extension of time is granted, the applicant seeks to rely on one ground in support of an application for leave to appeal sentence, namely, that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

5. All of the offences were committed in February and March 2021.  At the time, the applicant was aged 48 years and had a relevant prior criminal history in Queensland, having been sentenced on 23 May 2014 for, relevantly, offences of making child exploitation material, distributing child exploitation material, possessing child exploitation material and 126 charges of observations or recordings in breach of privacy.

6. At the time of being sentenced for those offences, the applicant was also sentenced for other offences including sexual assaults, indecent treatment of a child under 16 and indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12 years.  The applicant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment for that overall offending.  His parole in respect of that sentence expired months prior to the commission of these offences, which were committed some six months or so after the applicant had been released from custody.

7. The offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty, involved a gross breach of the privacy of 12 different women aged between 15 and 49 years.  On 22 occasions between 9 February 2021 and 13 March 2021, the applicant had made some 186 video recordings, in breach of privacy, of these 12 different women, in their homes which were located in his suburb and a neighbouring suburb.  Some of those recordings depicted the women inside their homes, fully or partially naked, other recordings were of the women showering.  Most of the women did not know they had been observed and recorded until after being approached by authorities.  Understandably, each woman was distressed at the gross invasion of their privacy.

8. The possession of child exploitation material involved almost 9,000 images and over 200 videos, found on two mobile phones and a hard drive.  The images depicted sexual violation of both male and female children by adults.  The children were of various ages from around 4 years old up to 12 years old.  The images included unprotected penile sexual intercourse.  The material was properly described by the sentencing judge as involving significant abuse of very young children and as containing “quite sick images”.

9. In sentencing the applicant, the sentencing judge found that this serious offending was made more serious by reason of the fact that the applicant had, in 2014, been sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment for more serious offending, some of which was similar to the current offending and, by reason of the fact that these offences were committed when the applicant had been “a couple of months off parole”.

10. The sentencing judge also recorded that a psychiatrist’s report revealed that the applicant’s life at the time of this offending was not good, with the applicant returning from work most days to drink and watch pornography.

11. The sentencing judge recorded that the applicant had spent some 793 days in custody and had pleaded guilty to the offences, a factor in his favour.  Notwithstanding those factors, having regard to the applicant’s past history and the circumstances of the offending, the sentencing judge found that personal deterrence was very important.

12. The sentencing judge found that it was appropriate to impose the maximum penalty for the observations in breach of privacy offences, namely 3 years’ imprisonment and that a cumulative period of imprisonment should be imposed for possession of the child exploitation material.  Whilst that latter sentence had been submitted by the Crown to be appropriately 3 to 4 years, the sentencing judge moderated the sentence to allow for the fact that it was to be served cumulatively.

13. The applicant submits that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, as there should have been imposed concurrent sentences in the order of 4 years’ imprisonment, having regard to the time the applicant had already spent in custody for his earlier offending.

14. In support of that submission, the applicant submitted that the sentencing judge had erred by proceeding on an incorrect understanding of his criminal history and by relying on and making reference to observations contained in the psychiatric report which were said to be a concession by the applicant that he had decided “jail was not that bad” and that he would “commit more offences”.

15. There is, in my view, no merit in the applicant’s contention that concurrent sentences in the order of 4 years ought to have been imposed for the offences.

16. First, the applicant’s offending involved separate criminality.  The observations in breach of privacy offences involved appalling breaches of privacy.  The women were unknown to him, and the recordings were of them in the sanctity of their own homes.  The possession of child exploitation material involved the possession of thousands of graphic images, depicting appalling abuse of young children.  Such separate serious conduct warranted cumulative sentences of imprisonment.

17. Second, having regard to the applicant’s prior criminal history, which included the commission of similar offences in the past, a sentence in which deterrence and denunciation loomed large was appropriate.  A sentence as low as 4 years would not have appropriately reflected those factors, particularly when regard is had for the need for both personal and general deterrence.

18. Third, the offences were committed by the applicant shortly after he had completed parole for earlier offending, some of which was similar in nature.  Against that background, factors in mitigation could not be said to evidence genuine prospects of rehabilitation.

19. When regard is had to those factors, the imposition of a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment, for multiple offences of observations in breach of privacy and a cumulative sentence of 2.5 years’ imprisonment, for the count of possession of child exploitation material, fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion.

20. There is also, in my view, no merit in the applicant’s contentions that the sentencing judge sentenced him on the basis of an erroneous understanding of his criminal history, or of the contents of the psychiatric report.

21. The sentencing judge accurately recorded the applicant’s prior criminal history.  It was the fact of the commission of those previous offences that was relevant, not any time period over which it had been submitted those previous offences had been committed by the applicant.

22. Further, the observations of the psychiatrist were an accurate reflection of what the applicant admits he said to the psychiatrist, namely, “that after spending such a long time in prison I was institutionalized and it was difficult for me assimilating back into the community and that during the very hard times in my life, when things were the most difficult, I believed that my life was easier in prison, referring to how I thought and felt at times”.[1]

    [1]Applicant’s Outline of Argument p 7.

23. As the applicant’s proposed ground of appeal enjoys no prospect of success, the grant of an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal sentence would be futile.

24. I would order that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal sentence be refused.

25. BROWN JA:  I agree that the application for an extension of time within which the sentence – within which to appeal the sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Justice Boddice.

26. BRADLEY JA:  I also agree that the application should be refused for the reasons identified by Justice Boddice.

27. BODDICE JA:  The order of the Court is that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal sentence be refused.  Thank you.  Thank you, Mr Goodwin.  We will just terminate the link.  Thank you, Mr Nardone.

28. APPLICANT:  Thank you, your Honour.  Thank you, your Honours.