AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 July 2024

R v Goodacre

[2024] NSWDC 432

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyFirearms & weapons

Citation: R v Goodacre [2024] NSWDC 432
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 July 2024
Judge(s): Haesler SC DCJ

Background

In the early hours of 3 July 2023, the offender left a Wollongong home and committed a series of escalating violent and property offences over approximately two hours. He first smashed the window of a parked car and stole property from it. When the car's owner confronted him, he produced a knife from his sleeve, threatened the owner, and the owner suffered a wrist injury when he fell while backing away.

The offender then travelled to a nearby railway station, still carrying the knife. Around 6 am, he climbed through a toilet window and entered an occupied home. Inside, he confronted the male occupant, accused him of being a paedophile, demanded drugs, money and car keys, and then punched and kicked him. The victim had in fact been stabbed multiple times. He was taken to hospital with stab wounds to his neck, shoulder, back and hand, a facial fracture, and dental injuries. The offender stole a handbag and mobile phones before police apprehended him nearby.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a series of charges, which were committed to the District Court for sentencing. Three matters proceeded for sentence, and three further offences were placed on a Form 1 attached to the principal charge.

  • What was the appropriate sentence for specially aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence (s 112(3), Crimes Act 1900), including the proper weight to give the standard non-parole period as a legislative guidepost?
  • Whether the principal offence fell above, at, or below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, given the parties' competing submissions?
  • How the Form 1 offences (property damage, larceny, and knife custody in a public place) should affect the sentence for the principal charge?
  • What weight to give subjective factors including the offender's drug dependency, intoxication, learning difficulties, and history of childhood sexual abuse?
  • What discount applied for the utilitarian value of the early guilty pleas?

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ accepted that all offences were sufficiently serious to warrant custodial sentences. On the central question of objective seriousness for the specially aggravated break and enter, the court declined to resolve the dispute by fixing a precise point on a notional scale. Drawing on Eaton v R, BH v R, FL v R, and Owen v R, his Honour found that while courts should avoid expressing objective seriousness through formulae or percentages, it remains desirable to assess whether an offence falls at, above, or below the statutory midpoint when the parties' submissions conflict and a standard non-parole period applies. The court treated the offence as falling in the middle range, giving meaningful content to the 7-year standard non-parole period as required by Muldrock v The Queen.

The court noted several factors that elevated the seriousness of the break and enter: the offender was armed with knives, the home was occupied, the victim suffered multiple stab wounds and a facial fracture, and the offender's intoxicated state made his behaviour unpredictable and more dangerous. The Form 1 offences, particularly their individual seriousness, warranted greater weight being given to personal deterrence and retribution. His Honour was careful not to double-count the knife use, which was already an element of the offensive weapon charge and a relevant fact for the break and enter.

On subjective matters, the court took into account the offender's stimulant and opioid use disorders, learning deficiencies, and history of childhood sexual abuse. These were assessed through expert evidence from Dr Coe. While the court acknowledged these matters as relevant to moral culpability, they did not displace the need for significant custodial terms given the nature and sequence of the offending. The offender's prospects for rehabilitation were described as dependent on maturity, treatment, and addressing substance abuse, with the court noting that the offender had the capacity to become a productive member of the community if the cycle of offending were broken.

Each sentence was reduced by 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas entered in the Local Court. The court then applied the principles of totality from Postiglione v The Queen and Cahyadi v R to structure individual sentences into an aggregate sentence that was just and appropriate to the overall criminality.

Orders Made

  • Use offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence: 2 years and 3 months imprisonment.
  • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm: 1 year and 6 months imprisonment.
  • Specially aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence: indicated sentence of 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.
  • Aggregate sentence: 7 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing 3 July 2023, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 7 months. The offender is eligible for parole consideration from 2 February 2028. The parole period of 2 years and 8 months runs from 3 February 2028 and expires on 20 October 2030.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that sentencing courts are not required to express objective seriousness by reference to a formula, percentage, or classification, but where parties dispute whether an offence falls above or below the statutory midpoint and a standard non-parole period applies, it is desirable to resolve that question as a guide to the sentencing discretion.

  • Meaningful content must be given to a standard non-parole period as a legislative guidepost, consistent with Muldrock v The Queen, without treating it as a mandatory starting point or conducting a staged sentencing approach.

  • Form 1 offences cannot be the subject of additional punishment, but where they are individually serious, they may justify increased weight on personal deterrence and retribution for the principal charge to which they are attached, provided there is no double-counting with elements already reflected elsewhere.

  • Subjective factors including drug addiction, learning difficulties, and a history of childhood sexual abuse were treated as relevant to moral culpability and rehabilitation prospects, but did not override the objective gravity of sustained, escalating violent offending against multiple victims.

  • A 25% discount for guilty pleas entered at the Local Court stage was applied, consistent with the utilitarian value of early pleas under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(1), 3B(1)(a), 112(3)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
- Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
- Eaton v R [2023] NSWCCA 125
- BH v R [2023] NSWCCA 278
- FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
- Owen v R [2022] NSWCCA 214
- Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
- R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346