Citation: R v Goodwin [2004] NSWSC 757
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 August 2004
Judge(s): Howie J
Background
The offender, Robert Craig Goodwin, pleaded guilty to two counts of murder arising from events on 28 February 2003 in Cooma, New South Wales. He shot and killed his estranged wife and her new partner at the partner's home, where the wife had been residing since leaving the matrimonial home approximately two weeks earlier.
In the days before the killings, the offender had expressed to both of his adult sons his intention to shoot his wife and her partner and then take his own life. He armed himself and attended the premises at night. After the shootings, he sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head and initially denied all knowledge of the deaths when arrested the following day.
Prior to the guilty plea, a question arose about the offender's fitness to stand trial, based on his claimed inability to recall the events. Howie J found the offender fit to be tried. The offender subsequently entered guilty pleas on both counts the following day.
Legal Issues
- Whether each murder fell within the middle of the range of objective seriousness, making the standard non-parole period of 20 years a relevant reference point
- What weight, if any, to give to the offender's account of the killings as relayed to a psychologist, given the earlier fitness proceedings were conducted on the basis he had no memory of events
- What discount to apply for the guilty pleas, and how to structure cumulative sentences that reflected the totality of the offender's criminality
Decision
Howie J assessed each murder as falling within the middle range of objective seriousness. The premeditation involved was an aggravating factor, as was the fact that both killings occurred at Mr Clarke's home where the two victims were residing. However, the court accepted that the offender, who was otherwise of good character, was suffering from a significant mental and emotional disturbance that affected his reasoning at the time.
The offender's account of the killings, provided to a psychologist in July 2004, attracted limited weight. The court noted the inconsistency between that account and the offender's earlier claimed total loss of memory, which had been the foundation of the fitness proceedings only weeks before. Howie J applied established principles that a sentencing court should not readily accept unsworn offender accounts in psychological reports without corroborating objective evidence.
A discount of 17.5 per cent was applied to each sentence to reflect the guilty pleas. The court then considered the principle of totality, determining that the sentences should be partially accumulated rather than fully concurrent, to ensure the combined punishment adequately reflected the gravity of taking two lives. Howie J determined a total undiscounted sentence of 33 years with a non-parole period of 26 years was appropriate, and structured the sentences accordingly.
Orders Made
- For the murder of his wife: imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16.5 years, commencing 1 March 2003 and expiring 31 August 2019, with a balance of term of 5.5 years expiring 1 September 2019
- For the murder of Mr Clarke: imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16.5 years, commencing 1 March 2008 and expiring 31 August 2024 (the date upon which the offender is to be considered for parole), with a balance of term of 5.5 years expiring 28 February 2030
- Total minimum period of custody: 21.5 years
Key Takeaways
- Although the standard non-parole period under the table to s 54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 does not apply where an offender has pleaded guilty, the Supreme Court confirmed it remains a relevant guide to Parliament's intentions regarding the punishment of murder, consistent with R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
- A sentencing court should not readily accept an offender's account of circumstances surrounding an offence when that account appears in a psychological report without sworn evidence or reliable corroborating objective evidence
- The inconsistency between an offender's claimed total loss of memory during fitness proceedings and a subsequent detailed account given to a psychologist weeks later was treated as a reason to approach that account with caution
- Partial accumulation of sentences for multiple murders is appropriate to ensure the total sentence reflects the full criminality of taking more than one life, applying the totality principle
- Significant mental and emotional disturbance affecting reasoning at the time of the offences, combined with otherwise good character, can mitigate objective seriousness even where premeditation is established
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 44, 54B
Cases:
- R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131