Goodwin v The King - [2023] NZCA 358

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA385/2021
[2023] NZCA 358

BETWEEN	WAYNE ERNEST GOODWIN Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	15 June 2023
Court:	Wylie, Thomas and Brewer JJ
Counsel:	A M S Williams and K E Bucher for Appellant J M Webber for Respondent
Judgment:	9 August 2023 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brewer J)

Introduction

On 25 November 2019, Judge Zohrab sentenced Mr Wayne Goodwin to 350 hours’ community work and to pay reparation of $52,010.29 on one representative charge of accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose.[1] He now appeals his conviction and sentence.[2]
[1]R v Goodwin [2019] NZDC 26797 [Sentencing decision]. The offence is created by s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
[2]Goodwin v R HC Auckland CRI-2020-442-1, 19 April 2021. The appeal was filed first by mistake in the High Court. Mr Goodwin represented himself. It was not pursued and on 19 April 2021 was deemed abandoned. On 29 June 2021, Mr Goodwin filed a notice of application in this Court for leave to appeal against the High Court’s abandonment decision. This was also an error. Mr Goodwin’s trial was to be before a jury. His first appeal, therefore, is to this Court. We have treated his notice as a notice of first appeal.
Mr Goodwin had pleaded guilty to the charge. Shortly before the sentencing hearing he provided Mr Bamford, his then counsel, with an application to withdraw his plea of guilty. Mr Bamford emailed the application to the District Court on 24 November 2019 and advised that Mr Goodwin would need time to arrange alternative representation. The content of the application is relevant to issues in the appeal against conviction and so we reproduce it:[3]
[3](Emphasis preserved).
Application to withdraw Guilty Plea
1. At a Judicial Conference on 03 September 2019, both Defendants (Mary and Wayne) instructed the Court via their counsel that the Trial format would be Judge Only.
This was confirmed to Court by Tony Bamford before 11.00 a.m. on Thursday 05 September 2019.
2. At 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 12 September 2019, Mary met with her counsel, Steven Zindel, who informed Mary that she now had a Jury Trial.
3. Steven Zindel had, without any consultation or consent from his client, unilaterally and arbitrarily instructed the Court to change the Trial process. This is an unlawful act.
4.On the morning of Friday 13 September 2019, I visited my counsel Tony Bamford seeking an urgent solution to the unlawful act committed by Steven Zindel the previous day. I confirmed with Tony that it was my human right to settle out of Court. I then asked Tony to put forward an outrageous offer to the Crown in order to rescue my highly distressed wife from the unlawfully obtained Jury Trial looming on the morning of Monday…

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 Goodwin v The King

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v The King [2023] NZCA 358
Case: [2023] NZCA 358
Decision Date: 9 August 2023 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wayne Goodwin appealed against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court. Goodwin argued that the District Court erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. Goodwin's alternative ground of appeal was that he was not given a proper opportunity to advance an application for a discharge without conviction. The Court of Appeal considered whether there was a miscarriage of justice and whether the direct and indirect consequences of convictions were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The Court found that Goodwin understood the bargain he reached with the Crown, and the Court did not err in refusing Goodwin's application to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court also found that there was no prospect of a discharge without conviction in these circumstances. Therefore, the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders