R v Goodson - [2018] NZHC 3155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-1086

[2018] NZHC 3155

THE QUEEN

v

CARLY JADE GOODSON

Hearing: 3 December 2018

Counsel:

H Steele for Crown

R Keam for Defendant

Judgment:

3 December 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v GOODSON [2018] NZHC 3155 [3 December 2018]

[1] Ms Goodson, you were found guilty of the following charges - demanding with intent to steal; kidnapping; and dishonest use of a document.

[2] The maximum sentence you face is for demanding with intent to steal, namely 14 years. But the Crown accepts that, having regard to the facts of your offending, the lead charge is properly one of kidnapping. The maximum sentence for that is seven years.

Facts

[3] I turn to the facts of your offending. In the early hours of 15 January 2017, you met up with Ms Robertson, a co-defendant, and the victim. After visiting the victim’s apartment, the three of you travelled to a motel in Newmarket. Ms Rudolph, another co-defendant, was already there. Shortly after arriving there, you and the victim went into one of the bedrooms. He agreed to pay you for sexual services. While you were in the room, Mr Hegotule burst into that room brandishing a knife. He, together with Ms Robertson and allegedly Ms Rudolph, demanded the victim transfer a considerable sum of money into a bank account belonging to your sister. The money was not transferred, although the victim’s wallet was taken.

[4] At about this time, the victim tried to make his escape. As he did so, Mr Hegotule struck him to the head, causing him to momentarily black out. The victim was then tied up and left in the bedroom. He was clearly injured, with blood flowing from the injury caused by Mr Hegotule’s blow. Before departing the motel with Mr Hegotule, you went into the room, said you were sorry and that you had not meant for this to happen. You placed a pillow under the victim’s head. Ms Robertson, and it is alleged, Ms Rudolph, then drove to several ATM machines and withdrew money using the victim’s bank cards.

[5] The victim managed to free himself and alert other motel users who then alerted the police. He suffered a fractured eye socket, a fractured nose and bruising, as well as cuts to his wrists. $2,800 was taken from his accounts.

Personal circumstances

[6] As to your personal circumstances, I have had the benefit of letters from your aunts about your background and I’ve heard from your aunt today. Ms Goodson, you are 35 years of age. Your mum passed away when you were young and, it appears, your father did not step up and you were left then in the care of your young aunt who could not cope with you at that time. You were taken into State care and, by the time you were 16, you lived independently. You…

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 Goodson

Details

AGLC: R v Goodson [2018] NZHC 3155
Case: [2018] NZHC 3155
Decision Date: 3 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant Carly Jade Goodson was found guilty of demanding with intent to steal, kidnapping, and dishonest use of a document. The maximum sentence for the most serious charge, demanding with intent to steal, is 14 years, but the Crown accepted that the lead charge was kidnapping, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering both the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

The defendant's role in the offending was relatively minor, with the victim having no recollection of her making any demand. The court considered the defendant's difficult upbringing and episodes of abuse that she had suffered, which formed the background to her criminality. However, the court also had to consider the defendant's capacity for rehabilitation and her capacity to overcome adversity in the past. The court also took into account the defendant's compassion for the victim and her expressions of remorse.

The court sentenced the defendant to 24 months’ imprisonment on the kidnapping charge, with a starting point of 33 months, a 5-month discount for personal mitigating factors and a 4-month discount for time spent on EM bail. The court also granted the defendant leave to apply for home detention if a suitable location could be found. The court considered the defendant's low risk of future similar offending, her strong capacity to overcome adversity, and the support of her family for her rehabilitation.

The court granted the defendant leave to apply for home detention if a suitable location could be found. The defendant was also sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on the remaining charges, to be served concurrently.

Orders