R v Scott Golding - [2011] NSWDC 104

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Scott GOLDING [2011] NSWDC 104
Decision date: 11 July 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
Non-parole period of 2 years 3 months, balance of the term of 9 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - reckless wounding -additional charge of common assault to be taken into account - plea of guilty at earliest opportunity - stabbed victim during fight with fishing knife - heavily intoxicated at time of the offence -prior criminal record - unsatisfactory performance during previous periods of supervision by Probation and Parole Service - completed school certificate while in custody - history of offending related to drug and alcohol abuse - offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness - guarded prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s 35(4)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A, s 32
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Scott Golding
Representation: Mr Robinson for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Stewart for the offender

File Number(s): 2009/54267

SENTENCE

1. Scott Golding has been drunk and committed crimes before. I am sentencing him for a very serious crime which he committed whilst he was drunk. It resulted in a teenager having to be taken to hospital for emergency surgery because of a stab wound inflicted by Mr Golding.

2. Mr Golding has been charged with the offence of reckless wounding. He has pleaded guilty to that offence at the earliest available opportunity. The offence is made a crime by s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900. Parliament has fixed a maximum of seven years imprisonment to the crime. Parliament regards it as so serious that it has also fixed a standard non-parole period of three years to the crime.

3. When I am sentencing Mr Golding for the crime, he has asked me to take into account another offence of common assault committed on the same occasion. I will take that into account when I am sentencing him and I sign a form comprising that additional charge, provided under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

4. It is important for a judge in sentencing a person to briefly describe what happened so that the basis of the sentence can be understood. Mr Golding, who is now thirty-four, was working on fishing boats in the Northern Territory. He came to Sydney on 11 January last year on a break from work and in order to stay at a friend's house in Surry Hills.

5. Mr Stewart of counsel called his client to give evidence. Mr Golding described how he had been drinking before he left Darwin and on the plane flight to Sydney, so that when he got off the plane he was, as he described, " blind drunk ". He got to his friend's place in Surry Hills and started drinking again straight away. They and others were drinking all day.

6. There was a young woman who lived at the same place who was…

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 Scott Golding

Details

AGLC: R v Scott Golding [2011] NSWDC 104
Case: [2011] NSWDC 104
Decision Date: 11 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of Scott Golding, who had pleaded guilty to charges of reckless wounding and common assault. The incident in question arose from a fight during which Golding stabbed a victim with a fishing knife. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Golding, who was heavily intoxicated at the time of the offence, had a prior criminal record and had previously struggled with drug and alcohol abuse. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offence and Golding's prospects for rehabilitation.

The court faced the task of assessing the appropriate sentence for Golding, considering both the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as Golding's background and prospects for rehabilitation. In particular, the court had to determine whether the additional charge of common assault should be taken into account when determining the sentence for the reckless wounding charge, and if so, how it should impact the overall sentence. The court also had to consider Golding's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, his intoxication at the time of the offence, his prior criminal history, and his unsatisfactory performance during previous periods of supervision by the Probation and Parole Service.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the offence was in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for reckless wounding, but that Golding's guarded prospects of rehabilitation due to his history of drug and alcohol abuse were a mitigating factor. The court noted that Golding had completed his school certificate while in custody, which was a positive step towards rehabilitation. The court also took into account Golding's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, which was another mitigating factor. Ultimately, the court determined that a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months, followed by a balance of the term of 9 months, was the appropriate sentence in this case.

The court ordered that Golding be sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months, followed by a balance of the term of 9 months. The court emphasised the importance of Golding's rehabilitation and noted that his sentence included opportunities for him to address his drug and alcohol issues while in custody. The court also noted that Golding's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity was a mitigating factor that had been taken into account when determining his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Non-parole period of 2 years 3 months, balance of the term of 9 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Scott GOLDING [2011] NSWDC 104
Decision date:	11 July 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Non-parole period of 2 years 3 months, balance of the term of 9 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - reckless wounding -additional charge of common assault to be taken into account - plea of guilty at earliest opportunity - stabbed victim during fight with fishing knife - heavily intoxicated at time of the offence -prior criminal record - unsatisfactory performance during previous periods of supervision by Probation and Parole Service - completed school certificate while in custody - history of offending related to drug and alcohol abuse - offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness - guarded prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 s 35(4) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A, s 32
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Scott Golding
Representation:	Mr Robinson for the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Stewart for the offender
File Number(s):	2009/54267