R v Goulding - [2007] SASC 60

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v GOULDING
[2007] SASC 60
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Perry and The Honourable Justice Gray)
2 March 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence - appellant pleaded guilty to the crimes of manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice - sentencing Judge imposed a head sentence of 15 years' imprisonment and a non-parole period of 12 years - whether the head sentence was manifestly excessive - whether the non-parole period was manifestly excessive - Held: the sentence imposed represented reasonable, proportionate and appropriate punishment - the non-parole period was justified by the circumstances of the case - appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18A, referred to.
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; R v Weinman (1987) 49 SASR 248, considered.

R v GOULDING
[2007] SASC 60
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Perry and Gray JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would dismiss the appeal against sentence. I agree with the reasons given by Gray J.
PERRY J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.
GRAY J:
On 7 September 2006, the appellant, Andrew James Goulding, pleaded guilty to the crimes of manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice. On 1 June 2005, at Elizabeth Park, the appellant unlawfully killed Shane Francis Casey, and on the same date at Elizabeth Park and other places, he attempted to pervert the course of justice.
On 7 November 2006, a Judge of this Court sentenced the appellant pursuant to section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) to the one penalty with respect to both offences. The learned Judge imposed a head sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. He fixed a non-parole period of 12 years. The sentence was deemed to have commenced on 7 June 2005, the date on which the appellant was taken into custody.
The appeal raised a challenge to the length of the head sentence and the non-parole period. It was complained that both were manifestly excessive.
The circumstances of the appellant’s criminal conduct were particularly serious. A dispute had arisen between the deceased, the appellant and one Gardiner. The dispute related to a quantity of a chemical used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. The circumstances of the dispute were unclear but suspicions were held, in particular by the appellant, about the deceased having a role in “ripping off” others in relation to the purchase of the ingredient. Gardiner and two others, Blackwood and Allen went to the victim’s home on 1 June 2005, detained the deceased and drove him to a house at Elizabeth Park where the appellant was waiting.
On arrival the deceased realised that he was in trouble and sought to escape. He was pursued by the appellant and…

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 Goulding

Details

AGLC: R v Goulding [2007] SASC 60
Case: [2007] SASC 60
Decision Date: 2 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Goulding involved an appeal against sentence imposed following a conviction for manslaughter and the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appellant had entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to 15 years in prison with a non-parole period of 12 years. The appeal challenged the severity of both the head sentence and the non-parole period.

The legal issues central to the appeal revolved around whether the 15-year head sentence and the 12-year non-parole period were manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed, considering the mitigating factors and the maximum penalties prescribed by law. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was proportionate and appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the crimes.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, noting that the appellant's conduct demonstrated a serious breach of public trust and resulted in the death of another person. The court emphasised that there were few, if any, mitigating factors and that the appellant's personal history did not explain his criminal conduct. The court concluded that the sentence was reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the crimes. The non-parole period, while substantial, was justified by the nature of the offences and the need to ensure public safety. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of the appeal against sentence. The sentence of 15 years with a non-parole period of 12 years was upheld as reasonable and proportionate to the crimes committed.

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

PERRY J (dissent)

It is to be recalled that the appellant also pleaded guilty to the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for four years. This too was a serious offence. Conclusion The sentence imposed represented reasonably proportionate and appropriate punishment with respect to the overall criminal conduct of the appellant. The penalty was not manifestly excessive. As the sentencing Judge observed, there were few, if any, mitigatory features in the circumstances of the offence. The personal antecedents of the appellant did not provide any particular explanation for his conduct. The non-parole period, although for a significant portion of the head sentence, was justified by the circumstances of the case. The appeal should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.