R v Goodwin - [2001] VSC 519

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1488 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ALBERT HILDER GOODWIN

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 and 13 DECEMBER 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 DECEMBER 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. GOODWIN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 519

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty accepted on basis of provocation – Offender stabbed his wife during a domestic argument – Offender's advanced age and excellent antecedents taken into account – Six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years 8 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. S. Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. I. McIvor	Beckwith, Cleverdan & Ross

HIS HONOUR:

Albert Hilder Goodwin, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your wife, Anne Jessie Goodwin, at Viewbank on 4 April 2001, and it is now my responsibility to sentence you for that offence. In order to do so it is necessary to refer to the facts of the crime and the circumstances which led up to its commission.

As at 4 April 2001 you were 83 years of age and your wife, known as Nancy, was aged 82. You had been married for almost 60 years. For the previous decade your wife had been unwell. Her numerous ailments included rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in severe deformity of her hands and feet, osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine, deterioration of vision, and a weight problem. In 1990 her left cancerous kidney was removed and in 1996 she underwent chemotherapy for bladder cancer.

As a result of the arthritis and visual disabilities in particular, your wife became dependent upon you as her daytime chauffeur and for the performance of many household chores. In fact, you were ultimately in receipt of a carer's pension. Whilst you willingly undertook these tasks, you complained to your son Martyn that your efforts were not rewarded with much gratitude from your wife. Indeed, there were frequent arguments between you both and on rare occasions your wife struck you, although not inflicting any apparent injury. It was not alleged that you were violent towards her.

Family friends of both of you, such as Mrs Frances Matthews and Mrs Beryl Harris, referring particularly to the last five years, describe your wife as being the dominant person in the relationship. It was further indicated that she was prone to nag or ridicule you. These informants attested to your willingness nonetheless to assist her. In her deposition Mrs Matthews stated: "It would be fair to say that Nancy placed a lot of demands upon Albert. Albert did most of the cooking and housework. However, Nancy would not recognise Albert's contributions to the running of the household."

Mrs Goodwin's sister, Mrs Pearl McKinnon, speaking of your arguments, put it this way: "Both of them seemed pre-occupied with who owned which person's money. They won Tattslotto some years ago and I think that is…

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 [2001] VSC 519
Case: [2001] VSC 519
Decision Date: 21 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Goodwin, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter following a plea of guilty. The incident arose from a domestic dispute between the offender and his wife, during which the offender stabbed the victim. The offender's advanced age and otherwise unblemished criminal record were factors considered by the court. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the central legal issues revolved around the sentencing of the offender, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of provocation and the offender's background.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the manslaughter conviction, weighing the gravity of the offence against the offender's age and prior good character. The plea of provocation was accepted, implying that the offender's actions were driven by an intense emotional response to the domestic dispute. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the serious nature of the violent act, which resulted in the victim's death.

After considering the arguments and the circumstances, the court sentenced the offender to six years' imprisonment. The non-parole period was set at 2 years and 8 months, reflecting a recognition of the mitigating factors while also ensuring public safety. The court's decision took into account the provocation and the offender's background, ultimately aiming to achieve a just outcome that appropriately addresses the offence committed.

The final orders of the court mandated that the offender serve a total of six years in prison, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months. This decision recognises the mitigating factors while also emphasising the need for punishment and deterrence. The court's ruling provides a clear and balanced approach to sentencing in this case, considering both the severity of the offence and the offender's personal circumstances.

Orders