R v Goold (No 2) - [2016] ACTSC 228

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Goold (No 2)
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 228
Hearing Date:	17 August 2016
DecisionDate:	17 August 2016
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	(i) The offender is sentenced, in respect of the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, to commence on 9 May 2018 and end on 8 May 2024. (ii) The non-parole period in respect of the offence stated in order (i) and in respect of the sentence imposed by Walmsley AJ on 9 May 2016 is to expire on 17 September 2022.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – sexual intercourse without consent – common assault
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 92D Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 6, 7, 66
Cases Cited:	R v Nona [2015] ACTSC 136 R v Scheeren [2014] ACTSC 272
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) John Goold (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McMurray(Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 7A of 2014
Publication Restriction:	The complainant’s identity is suppressed

ELKAIM J:

On 8 June 2016 the offender was arraigned on the single count in the indictment numbered CC13/7357 and dated 21 February 2014.

Following arraignment the offender entered a plea of guilty. The charge is that between 1 May 1992 and 25 October 1993 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he engaged in sexual intercourse with QQ without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting, or being reckless as to whether she was consenting.

This offence is contrary to s 92D of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of 12 years imprisonment. It carries the same penalty as at the time the offence was committed.

The offender has also asked for another offence, of common assault, to be taken into account.

The offender is already in prison. This is because on 9 May 2016, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a number of offences for which he had been found guilty by a jury in a trial that concluded on 18 December 2015. On that date the jury found the offender guilty of 10 counts relating to unlawful sexual activity with minors.

The details of the offences can be found in the sentencing reasons given by Walmsley AJ on 9 May 2016. The overall result of the sentences imposed by Walmsley AJ was a sentence of imprisonment of eight years with a non-parole period of four years and nine months. The non-parole period expires on 17 September 2020.

The sentencing remarks reveal that the jury was unable to make a decision on one count and was discharged in respect of that count. I was informed today that the plea of guilty to the offence before me was a product of an agreement with the Crown that the offender would not face a fresh trial in respect…

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 Goold (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Goold (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 228
Case: [2016] ACTSC 228
Decision Date: 17 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Goold (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, presided over by Justice Gray. The appellant, Goold, was charged with sexual intercourse without consent and common assault. The case focused on the sentencing of Goold, who had previously been convicted of these offences. Goold had appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed on him, arguing that it was excessive and disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Goold was appropriate and whether there were any grounds for reducing the term of imprisonment. The legal issues involved assessing the severity of the crimes, the principles of sentencing in relation to sexual offences, and whether the sentence was disproportionate. The court also had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fit the crime.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. Justice Gray held that the sentence imposed was not excessive, despite Goold's appeal. The court found that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for sexual offences were commensurate with the gravity of the crimes.

The final orders of the court were that Goold is to serve a term of imprisonment of six years for the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with the non-parole period set to expire on 17 September 2022. The sentence reflects the court's determination that the punishment was proportionate and appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

(i) The offender is sentenced, in respect of the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, to commence on 9 May 2018 and end on 8 May 2024.

(ii) The non-parole period in respect of the offence stated in order (i) and in respect of the sentence imposed by Walmsley AJ on 9 May 2016 is to expire on 17 September 2022.

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.