AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 27 August 2025

Godwin v R

[2025] NSWCCA 134

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyFirearms & weapons
CRIME CONVICTION APPEAL

Citation: Godwin v R [2025] NSWCCA 134
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 27 August 2025
Judges: Ward P; Hamill J and Dhanji J (additional joint reasons)

Background

The applicant was convicted in the District Court in May 2023 on three counts arising from an incident on 1 March 2021 at the home of his adult son. The Crown alleged that, following a financial dispute and a prior altercation, the applicant went to his son's home armed with a loaded firearm, forcibly entered the premises, threatened his son's partner and her young daughter, and discharged the firearm multiple times inside the house.

The son fled through the back door to a neighbour's house, from which a triple-zero call was made. When police arrived, the applicant had already left as a passenger in a friend's truck. He was later arrested and found to be highly intoxicated. Gunshot residue was detected on the passenger side of the truck and on the applicant's clothing.

The applicant was convicted of specially aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence (count 1), firing a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of other persons (count 3), and possessing a firearm without a licence or permit (count 4). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months. He sought leave to appeal his conviction on the single ground that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

  • Whether the applicant required, and should be granted, an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal and leave to appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
  • Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, having regard to the fact that the two principal eyewitnesses recanted their pre-trial accounts at trial and appeared actively uncooperative

Decision

Extension of time and leave to appeal

The Notice of Appeal was filed on 24 March 2025, well outside the usual time limit. The explanation offered centred on the need to obtain transcripts for a merits assessment by appellate counsel, though it did not fully account for earlier delays. The Crown did not oppose the extension. The Court found the explanation, while not wholly satisfactory, raised matters at least partly beyond the applicant's control, and granted both the extension and leave to appeal.

The unreasonable verdict ground

The central difficulty for the prosecution was that the two eyewitnesses, the applicant's son and his son's partner, gave evidence at trial that was inconsistent with what they had told police at the scene immediately after the incident. Both appeared, in the Court's assessment, to make no genuine attempt to give truthful evidence and were cross-examined by the prosecution after the trial judge granted leave under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Hamill and Dhanji JJ observed that the willingness of the witnesses to lie on oath meant the jury was entitled to be cautious about the weight of any evidence they gave, including the contemporaneous police accounts.

Despite those concerns, the Court held the prosecution case was strong when assessed as a whole. The objective evidence at the scene, the physical evidence, and the contemporaneous accounts given to police immediately after the incident were sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt. The jury was entitled to reject the applicant's contention that he had been invited in through a side door, given the damage to the front door and the contemporaneous accounts of the son and his partner describing their fearful responses to the applicant's arrival.

Applying the well-established test from M v The Queen (1994) and the line of High Court authority through to The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9, the Court found it was open to the jury to convict. The Court was not left with any feeling of significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, and did not independently experience a reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders Made

  • Time for filing the Notice of Appeal extended to 24 March 2025, with the filing treated as an application for leave to appeal
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • A verdict may be reasonable and supportable even where the only eyewitnesses recanted their accounts at trial, provided the totality of the evidence, including contemporaneous statements to police and objective forensic evidence, was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Where eyewitnesses give evidence inconsistent with prior statements and appear uncooperative, the jury remains entitled to reject their trial evidence and to draw on the prior accounts as part of the overall body of evidence.
  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal applied the orthodox approach from M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487: the appellate court asks whether, having regard to all the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the court itself experiences a reasonable doubt.
  • An extension of time to appeal may be granted even where the explanation for delay is not wholly satisfactory, if the delay is at least partly attributable to circumstances beyond the applicant's control and the Crown does not oppose the extension.
  • Hamill and Dhanji JJ noted that body-worn video recordings, while useful, capture demeanour in a limited way: any assessment of a witness's reliability from such recordings is necessarily compromised compared with the advantage held by the jury who observed the witnesses in person at trial.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b), 10(1)(b)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 165(1)(a)
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 3.5(5)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(3), 33B(1)(a), 93G(1)(c)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 7A(1)

Cases
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
- Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
- Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
- The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 99 ALJR 676
- Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
- Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
- BA v The King (2023) 275 CLR 128; [2023] HCA 14
- Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
- Ozgen v R (Cth) [2025] NSWCCA 65