Regina v Goff - [2000] NSWCCA 194

Reported Decision: [2000] 112 A Crim R 485

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Goff [2000] NSWCCA 194

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 61076/99

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 11 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Craig Leslie Goff

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Ireland J at 31; Adams J at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0198; 98/21/0154; 96/21/0196

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL : L.M.B. Lamprati (Crown)
I. McClintock (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
T.A. Murphy (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Manslaughter - Failure to Direct Jury on Issue of Self Defence - Obligation Cannot be Extinguished by Waiver of Counsel - Expression Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Caution Against Definition in Other Terms - Resentence Arising From Separate Indictments - Observations on Response to Jury Enquiry During Deliberation

CASES CITED:
Pemble v The Queen 1971 124 CLR 107
R v Galambos 1980 2 A Crim R 388
R v Stokes and Difford 1990 51 A Crim R 25
R v Lawson and Forsythe 1986 VR 515
Green v The Queen 1971 126 CLR 28

DECISION: Appeal Allowed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60176/99

GROVE J
IRELAND J
ADAMS J

11 May 2000

REGINA v CRAIG LESLIE GOFF

JUDGMENT

1    GROVE J : This is an appeal against conviction of manslaughter following a trial before Karpin DCJ at Parramatta District Court. After conviction the appellant asked to be taken into account on sentence two offences, respectively of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and breaking entering and stealing. There was also presented against the appellant a second indictment, to three counts of which, charging assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault and possessing a shortened firearm, the appellant pleaded guilty. These pleas of guilty were accepted by the Crown in discharge of all counts in that indictment. Karpin DCJ dealt with both indictments and the matters taken into account contemporaneously and application is made for leave to appeal against the sentences ultimately imposed.

2    I turn first to the appeal against conviction. A short summary of facts will suffice. At about 6 am on 2 December 1995 a person engaged in recreational running passed a house in Baulkham Hills and observed a body lying supine in the front lawn with feet pointing towards a carport. Police were called and later a government pathologist Dr Ellis attended the scene. External examination revealed injuries to the face including a small hole in the middle of the forehead and bruising to both eyes, more severe to the right eye.

3    Dr Ellis later performed a post mortem and established the cause of death as bleeding into the abdomen. He found significant damage in that area which included a frank partition of the pancreas and multiple rib fractures. Dr Ellis expressed the opinion that a significant degree of force would have been required to achieve the degree of damage to the pancreas. Blood analysis showed that 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 Regina v Goff

Details

AGLC: Regina v Goff [2000] NSWCCA 194
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 194
Decision Date: 11 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Goff, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the circumstances surrounding the death of a 17-year-old boy, which occurred during an altercation between the defendant and the victim. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the issue of self-defence, and if so, whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had a duty to direct the jury on self-defence despite the absence of such a submission by counsel, and whether the trial judge's direction on the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" was adequate. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of the defendant's resentencing on the response to a jury enquiry during their deliberations.

The court concluded that the trial judge was not obliged to direct the jury on self-defence in the absence of a submission by counsel, as the obligation could not be extinguished by a waiver of counsel. However, the court found that the trial judge's direction on the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" was inadequate, as it did not caution against defining it in other terms. The court observed that this error did not lead to a miscarriage of justice in this particular case, and thus did not warrant a new trial. Regarding the resentencing, the court noted that it did not affect the response to the jury enquiry during their deliberations.

Orders