R v Goolagong (No 2)

Case [2021] ACTSC 131


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Goolagong (No 2)

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 131

Hearing Date(s):

3 February 2021, 27 April 2021

DecisionDate:

25 June 2021

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [156]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – act endangering health – aggravated furious or dangerous driving – attempted aggravated robbery – drive motor vehicle without consent – unlawful possession of stolen property – drive while unlicensed – common assault – attempted aggravated burglary –  joint commission aggravated burglary – joint commission damage property – minor theft – breach of Good Behaviour Order – suspended sentence – re-sentence – Verdins principles – Bugmy principles – significant criminal history – totality –  institutionalisation – guilty plea

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 45A, 310, 312, 318, 324, 326, 403

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26, 28
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 33
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22
Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) s 9
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 7, 7A
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31

Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 63

Cases Cited:

Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Cooke [2007] NSWCCA 2; 168 A Crim R 379

Dyer v R [2011] NSWCCA 185

Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162

Jinnette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217

Kelly v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 15

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18

O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47

O'Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTSC 47
R v BC [2020] ACTSC 308

R v Beattie [2019] ACTSC 12

R v Bennett; R v Simonds [2020] ACTSC 221

R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71
R v Booth [2017] ACTSC 191

R v Bright [2017] ACTSC 328

R v Carmody [2016] ACTSC 382
R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302

R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83

R v Goolagong [2020] ACTSC 67

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346

R v Holt [2020] ACTSC 311

R v Horne [2017] ACTSC 36

R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133

R v Johnstone [2016] ACTSC 112

R v KS; R v KN; R v KI (No 2) [2021] ACTSC…

Continue reading R v Goolagong (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Goolagong (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 131
Case
[2021] ACTSC 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The offender, Jermaine Troy Goolagong, pleaded guilty to a series of offences, including act endangering health, aggravated furious, reckless, or dangerous driving, attempted aggravated robbery, driving without consent, unlawful possession of stolen property, common assault, joint commission aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated burglary, and minor theft. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentences for each of the offences and determine the extent of concurrency and accumulation, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the statutory and other relevant considerations. The court found that the offender's moral culpability for the offence is reduced by reason of his mental impairment, general deterrence should be moderated in the case of the offender, specific deterrence must be considered in light of the period on parole and support during parole, and the effects of disadvantage and deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time. The court also took into account the principles of institutionalisation, and totality. The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months. The court ordered convictions in relation to the offences and set out the specific sentences for each offence, taking into account the discount for the pleas of guilty. The court also recommended that a copy of the Psychological Assessment Report be provided to the AMC Disability Liaison Officer and that the report be reviewed and that the AMC Disability Liaison Officer offer as much assistance as possible to prepare the offender for life outside of the prison environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.