R v Goodwin - [2003] VSCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No. 302 of 2002
v.
JASON GOODWIN
THE QUEEN	No. 307 of 2002
v.
JOHN DUNCAN McGREGOR

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, CHERNOV and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 August 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 120	1^st Revision – 26 August 2003

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Trafficking drugs of dependence (heroin and methylamphetamines) - Possession of drugs of dependence - Offender aged 29, "street dealer", total effective sentence of 4 years with non-parole period of 2 years 9 months - Offender aged 57, Vietnam veteran, supplier to street dealers, total effective sentence 4 years, non-parole period 2 years - Parity - Weight to be given to post-traumatic stress disorder - Sentences not manifestly excessive - Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, ss.71, 73.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R.A. Elston	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant Goodwin	Mr G.J. Thomas	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Appellant McGregor	Mr C.B. Boyce	Kenna Croxford & Co.

CHARLES, J.A.:

I will invite Eames, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

EAMES, J.A.:

The first appellant, Jason Goodwin, who was aged 29 at the time of sentencing, pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in a drug of dependence contrary to s.71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. On the first count the drug was heroin and on the second methyl-amphetamine. The offence carried a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 15 years. Goodwin also pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender to avoid apprehension for an offence, namely, theft, contrary to s.325(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. That offence carried a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.

The second appellant, John Duncan McGregor, who was aged 57 when sentenced, pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence, the drug being heroin, and to one count of possessing a drug of dependence, being methyl-amphetamine, contrary to s.73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act. The offence of possession of a drug of dependence carried a maximum sentence of imprisonment of five years.

On 11 November 2002 a judge of the County Court sentenced Goodwin to four years' imprisonment on the count of trafficking heroin. On the count of trafficking methyl-amphetamine he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and on the count of assisting an offender he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. A total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment was thereby imposed and the learned sentencing judge fixed a non-parole period of two years nine months for Goodwin.

McGregor was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the count of trafficking heroin and six months on the count of possessing methyl-amphetamine, and a non-parole period of two years was fixed.

Goodwin had been jointly charged with Leanne Vaughan, who has not appealed against the sentences imposed on her, and on the same presentment McGregor was jointly…

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 [2003] VSCA 120
Case: [2003] VSCA 120
Decision Date: 14 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two defendants, Goodwin and another individual, who were charged with drug-related offences. The nature of the dispute was the determination of an appropriate sentence for each defendant following their convictions. The court in question was a criminal court in Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's personal circumstances, specifically Goodwin's post-traumatic stress disorder, and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court also had to consider the relevant statutory provisions under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

The court determined that the sentences imposed on the defendants were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the need to deter the defendants and others from engaging in similar criminal conduct, and the need to provide just punishment for the offences. The court also considered the personal circumstances of the defendants, including Goodwin's post-traumatic stress disorder, but found that these factors did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and punishment in cases involving the trafficking of drugs of dependence.

In conclusion, the court upheld the sentences imposed on the defendants, finding that they were appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the defendants' personal circumstances but determined that they did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The sentences for the defendants were upheld, with Goodwin receiving a total effective sentence of 4 years and a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months, and the other defendant receiving a total effective sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Orders