R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 345

PARTIES:

R
v
GOODWIN, John William
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2014
DC No 731 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Mullins and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.      Appeal allowed.

2.      Sentences varied by removing the parole eligibility date.

3.      The orders imposed by the sentencing judge are otherwise confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent pleaded guilty 125 counts of recording in breach of privacy, 13 counts of burglary by breaking, in the night, six counts of sexual assault, three counts of burglary and stealing, one count of burglary, one count of making child exploitation material, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12, one count of observation in breach of privacy, one count of distributing child exploitation material and one count of possessing child exploitation material – where the respondent was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for each count of burglary by breaking, in the night and lesser concurrent sentences for each of the other offences, with eligibility for parole after serving two years and eight months – where the ground of appeal was manifest inadequacy – where there was a lack of comparable sentences – whether the sentences were unreasonable and plainly unjust

Criminal Code (Qld), s 210, s 352, s 669A

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372; [2014] HCA 2, considered
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49, considered
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, considered
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, considered
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, considered
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, considered
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, considered
R v GAE; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2008] QCA 128, considered
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, considered
R v Melano; ex parte Attorney-General [1995] 2 Qd R 186; [1994] QCA 523, considered
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, considered
R v Nuttall; Ex parte Attorney-General(Qld) [2011] 2 Qd R 328; [2011] QCA 120, considered
R v Sagiba; ex parte A-G[1999] QCA 468, considered
R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan QC, with S J Bain, for the appellant
J J Allen for…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] QCA 345
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Goodwin, appealed against their sentences following their conviction on multiple counts of serious criminal offences. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal, which had jurisdiction to review the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge. The offences included breaches of privacy, burglaries, sexual assaults, and possession and distribution of child exploitation material. The primary ground of appeal was that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentences were unreasonable and plainly unjust, given the nature and seriousness of the offences. The appeal hinged on the principle that sentences should be proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed. The court considered the lack of comparable sentences to evaluate the adequacy of the imposed penalties. The court was required to determine if the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, which would justify interference with the original sentencing decision.

In examining the sentences, the court noted the absence of comparable cases to provide a clear benchmark for proportionality. The court acknowledged the severity of the offences, particularly those involving breaches of privacy and child exploitation. The court found that while the total sentence length was substantial, the imposition of parole eligibility after serving only a fraction of the sentence rendered the overall punishment inadequate. The court concluded that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, as they failed to reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were varied to remove the parole eligibility date. The court confirmed the rest of the orders imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Sentences varied by removing the parole eligibility date.

3. The orders imposed by the sentencing judge are otherwise confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.