R v Goolagong - [2020] ACTSC 67

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Goolagong
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 67
Hearing Date:	28 January 2020
DecisionDate:	28 January 2020
Before:	Walker AJ
Decision:	The offender is not eligible for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The offender is to serve 12 months in prison, taken to have commenced on 3 July 2019 and to end on 2 August 2019. The offender is to pay a fine of $800.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving motor vehicle without consent – unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle – drive unlicensed – drug and alcohol treatment order not granted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 318(2), 324(1) Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31(2)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jermaine Goolagong (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel H Roberts (Crown) K Musgrove (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecution (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 7 of 2019 SCC 326 of 2019

Walker AJ (ex tempore)

Summary of charges

Jermaine Goolagong is charged with two counts of driving a motor vehicle without consent (CC2019/12639 and CC2019/12642), contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Code), which, on conviction, carries up to five years imprisonment or a fine of up to $80,000 or a combination of both, and one count of unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle (CC2019/12641), contrary to s 324(1) of the Code, which carries on conviction up to six months imprisonment, a fine of up to $8,000 or a combination of both.

He is also to be sentenced on a related matter which was transferred from the Magistrates Court for this reason of an offence of driving unlicensed (CC2020/1095), contrary to section 31(2) of the Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT). This offence does not attract a sentence of imprisonment, but rather a maximum fine of up to $3,200.

Mr Goolagong was arrested in respect to these charges on 3 July 2019 and has been remanded in custody since then with the exception of 2 days when he was released on bail; one on compassionate grounds and one to address an outstanding New South Wales matter. As at 28 January 2020, that results in a total of six months and 26 days pre-conviction custody which is to be taken into account on sentence.

Mr Goolagong pleaded guilty on 3 December 2019 in the Magistrates Court and was committed for sentence on the driving without consent charges. The summary matters which, at that time, included a drive whilst disqualified, since found to have been incorrectly laid, were transferred for sentence concurrently. The plea of guilty came after the matters had been listed for hearing. The drive whilst disqualified has been discontinued.

Evidence

For the purpose of sentencing, I have had the following material available to me: an amended statement of facts; Mr Goolagong's criminal history, both in the…

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 Goolagong

Details

AGLC: R v Goolagong [2020] ACTSC 67
Case: [2020] ACTSC 67
Decision Date: 28 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Goolagong involved an offender convicted of driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and driving without a licence. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court. The primary legal issues revolved around the offender's eligibility for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the offences.

The court considered whether the offender qualified for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, which would have involved mandatory treatment for substance abuse issues. The court determined that the offender did not meet the eligibility criteria for such an order. Additionally, the court assessed the appropriate sentence for the offences, taking into account the offender's criminal history, the nature of the offences, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court decided that a combination of imprisonment and a fine was necessary to achieve these objectives.

The court's reasoning was based on the offender's prior criminal history, which indicated a pattern of offending, and the seriousness of the current offences. The court concluded that the offender was not suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order due to the nature of the offences and the offender's lack of cooperation in addressing their substance abuse issues. As for the sentence, the court imposed a 12-month prison term, with the term to commence on 3 July 2019 and end on 2 August 2019, along with a fine of $800. This sentence was deemed appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to provide a deterrent effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is not eligible for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The offender is to serve 12 months in prison, taken to have commenced on 3 July 2019 and to end on 2 August 2019. The offender is to pay a fine of $800.

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.