The Queen v Gould - [2020] NSWDC 831

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Queen v Gould [2020] NSWDC 831
Hearing dates: 30 March 2020; 7 April 2020; 8 April 2020; 19 August 2020; 2 November 2020; 17 December 2020
Date of orders: 17 December 2020
Decision date: 17 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [216] – [220]

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing after jury trial – approach to determining facts for sentence – effect of Chiro v The Queen [2017] 260 CLR 425 – attempting to pervert the course of justice – s43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – coaching witness to give false evidence in Federal Court Proceedings

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 66EA
Crimes Act 1914 ss 16E, 16A, 17A, 19AB, 43
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s 6

Cases Cited:
AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 31
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
Chiro v The Queen [2017] 260 CLR 425
DPP v Page & Ors [2006] VSCA 224
Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87
Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6
R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186
R v Elomar [2018] NSWCCA 224
R v El Rashid (Unreported) NSWCCA 7 April 1995
R v Gregory (1996) 86 A Crim R 521
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (CDPP)
Vanda Russell Gould (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Single SC (CDPP)
Ms Epstein (CDPP)
Ms Rabsch (CDPP)

Mr Smith SC (Offender)
Mr De Mars (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms Clifford-O’Sullivan (ODPP)
Ms Peberdy (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/278181
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Vanda Russell Gould (“the Offender”) faced trial charged with a single count of attempting to pervert the course of justice, contrary to s43(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The indictment provided that the Offender attempted to pervert the course of justice in relation to a judicial power, namely Federal Court proceedings, being a judicial power of the Commonwealth. On 26 November 2019 a jury returned a verdict of guilty.
The maximum sentence for an offence under s43(1) is imprisonment for 10 years. This is a guidepost for sentencing judges.
Since the matter was last before me, a number of documents have been submitted through my Associate, which I have now marked. All other evidence and submissions have been previously marked.
The Offender now appears for sentence.

Context Of The Offending

The issue before the Federal Court was whether a number of companies with which the Offender was associated were residents of Australia within the meaning of s6(1)(b) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). As the companies were not incorporated in Australia, the question was whether the companies had their central management and control in Australia.
The question of central management and control was informed…

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 The Queen v Gould

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Gould [2020] NSWDC 831
Case: [2020] NSWDC 831
Decision Date: 17 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Gould was a criminal case heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Gould, had been found guilty by a jury of attempting to pervert the course of justice by coaching a witness to give false evidence in Federal Court proceedings. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Gould. The central legal issue before the court was the approach to be taken in determining the facts relevant to the sentencing decision, in light of the decision in Chiro v The Queen [2017] 260 CLR 425. This case had established that the sentencing court must determine the facts relevant to sentencing by applying the criminal standard of proof, namely beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the principles established in Chiro and other relevant authorities, and concluded that the sentencing court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the facts relied upon in imposing sentence. The court applied this approach to the facts of the case and determined that Gould had indeed coached a witness to give false evidence in Federal Court proceedings. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and other relevant factors, and imposed a full-time custodial sentence on Gould. The court made several orders to give effect to the sentence, including orders for Gould to be detained in a specified prison and for the sentence to commence immediately.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [216] – [220]

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:	The Queen v Gould [2020] NSWDC 831
Hearing dates:	30 March 2020; 7 April 2020; 8 April 2020; 19 August 2020; 2 November 2020; 17 December 2020
Date of orders:	17 December 2020
Decision date:	17 December 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [216] – [220]
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentencing after jury trial – approach to determining facts for sentence – effect of Chiro v The Queen [2017] 260 CLR 425 – attempting to pervert the course of justice – s43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – coaching witness to give false evidence in Federal Court Proceedings
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 66EA Crimes Act 1914 ss 16E, 16A, 17A, 19AB, 43 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s 6
Cases Cited:	AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 31 Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1 Chiro v The Queen [2017] 260 CLR 425 DPP v Page & Ors [2006] VSCA 224 Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87 Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6 R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186 R v Elomar [2018] NSWCCA 224 R v El Rashid (Unreported) NSWCCA 7 April 1995 R v Gregory (1996) 86 A Crim R 521 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42 The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (CDPP) Vanda Russell Gould (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Single SC (CDPP) Ms Epstein (CDPP) Ms Rabsch (CDPP) Mr Smith SC (Offender) Mr De Mars (Offender) Solicitors: Ms Clifford-O’Sullivan (ODPP) Ms Peberdy (Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/278181
Publication restriction:	None