AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 23 July 1999

R v Godden

[1999] NSWCCA 201

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyPublic order & justice offences
ACTS CITED :

Citation: R v Godden [1999] NSWCCA 201
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 23 July 1999
Judge(s): Studdert J; Simpson J

Background

The appellant, James Earl Godden, pleaded guilty in the District Court before Woods DCJ to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault with act of indecency against a former partner. On the night of the offences in October 1997, he forced entry to her home, physically assaulted her, and made threats of serious violence before partially undressing her and then withdrawing.

Several months later, while on bail for those matters, the appellant committed two armed robberies. In one, he entered a service station wearing a mask and armed with an imitation pistol and knife, threatening staff and claiming to have a syringe containing HIV-positive blood. In the second, he entered a liquor store similarly disguised and armed, taking $1,500 in cash.

Woods DCJ sentenced the appellant to concurrent fixed terms of one year's penal servitude for the assault offences, and concurrent sentences of three years minimum with a two-year additional term for the armed robberies, all running concurrently. The appellant, unrepresented, sought leave to appeal against those sentences.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in structuring the sentences imposed across all four offences
  • Whether sufficient weight was given to the appellant's subjective circumstances, including his drug dependency, absence of prior convictions, and the alleged threats to his family
  • Whether the sentencing judge failed to backdate the sentences to account for the sixty-nine days already spent in custody prior to the commencement date

Decision

Studdert J reviewed the sentencing judge's reasons carefully and found no error in the approach taken. His Honour had expressly identified the appellant's drug use as a contributing factor, made findings sympathetic to the appellant based on evidence from family and friends, and concluded that special circumstances existed warranting an extended additional term to support post-release supervision by the Probation and Parole Service.

On the question of pre-sentence custody, the Court found the sentencing judge had not overlooked the sixty-nine days already served. Woods DCJ had expressly stated in his sentencing remarks that he had taken that period into account when structuring the sentences, even though he was not obliged to backdate them formally.

The Court was satisfied that the sentences fell well within the range of a sound sentencing discretion. The armed robbery offences carried a maximum of twenty years' penal servitude each under the relevant provision, making the sentences imposed comparatively modest in context. The appellant had not established any ground warranting appellate intervention. Simpson J agreed.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a sentencing judge is not required to formally backdate sentences to the date of first arrest, provided the earlier period in custody is otherwise taken into account when structuring the overall sentence.
  • A sentencing court retains a broad discretion to weigh subjective features, including drug dependency and lack of prior violent history, without those features necessarily producing a reduced sentence where the objective seriousness of the offences is significant.
  • Under s 97 of the Crimes Act, armed robbery carries a maximum penalty of twenty years' penal servitude, which the Court of Criminal Appeal noted in confirming that the sentences imposed were well within range.
  • Committing further serious offences while on bail is an aggravating factor that a sentencing court is entitled to consider.
  • No error was established merely because psychological reports were not tendered at sentencing; the sentencing judge adequately addressed the appellant's mental and emotional state through other evidence before the court.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm), 61L (assault with act of indecency), 97 (armed robbery)
- Justices Act 1902 (NSW), s 51A (committal for sentence)

Cases cited: None identified in the judgment text or metadata.