Gould v R; R v Gould [2021] NSWCCA 92

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gould v R; R v Gould [2021] NSWCCA 92 Hearing dates: 7-8 April 2021 Decision date: 10 May 2021 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Davies J at [30]; Adamson J at [35] Decision: In respect of the application for leave to appeal against conviction (1) Refuse leave under rule 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) in respect of each of grounds 2(a), (b) and (c). In respect of the application for leave to appeal against sentence (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Dismiss the appeal. In respect of the Crown appeal pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) (1) Allow the Crown appeal. (2) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 17 December 2020 and in lieu, sentence the respondent, Vanda Russell Gould, to a total term of imprisonment of 6 years, commencing on 11 May 2020 and expiring on 10 May 2026, comprising a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months and a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months. (3) The respondent will become eligible for release on parole upon the expiry of the non-parole period on 10 November 2023. Catchwords: CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Application of rule 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) to grounds — Adequacy of direction that evidence be considered as a whole — No proper basis for a Murray direction — Whether the trial judge should have directed the jury about matters relating to credibility — Matters quintessentially within the province of the jury require no direction CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence Application for leave to appeal successful — Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to sentence in accordance with the principles in Chiro v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 425; [2017] HCA 37 — Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to sentence in accordance with Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67 — Whether principles in Chiro v The Queen apply wherever extended unanimity direction given or only for omnibus offences which require proof of facts which themselves amount to offences – Alleged failure to take into account delay CRIME — Appeals — Crown appeal against sentence — Whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate – relevance of respondent's age – need for general deterrence – objective seriousness of criminal conduct Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), s 11 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 35, 42, 43 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D Criminal Code (Qld), ss 210, 229B Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), ss 49, 50, 58, 74 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 294AA Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 50, 165 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 6 Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio No 2) Act 2017 (SA), s 9 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15 Cases Cited: Attwater v R; Maris v R [2021] NSWCCA 17 Burr v R [2020] NSWCCA 282 Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67 Chiro v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 425; [2017] HCA 37 Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2020) 275 FCR 342; [2020] FCAFC 30 DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26 Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100 Ewan v R [2020] NSWCCA 85 Ewen v R [2015] NSWCCA 117; (2015) 250 A Crim R 544 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 Gregg v R [2020] NSWCCA 245; (2020) 355 FLR 348 Hamra v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 479; [2017] HCA 38 Hassan v R [2018] NSWCCA 213 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1392; (2014) 100 ATR 244 Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51; [1996] HCA 24 Kaddour v R [2017] NSWCCA 294 Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7 KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417; [1997] HCA 54 Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264; [1985] HCA 72 KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (2020) 267 CLR 480; [2020] HCA 6 Lane v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 196; [2018] HCA 28 Magnus v R (2013) 41 VR 612; [2013] VSCA 163 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Pratten v R [2014] NSWCCA 117 Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 2018) [2018] SASCFC 128; (2018) 275 A Crim R 400 R v Beach (1994) 75 A Crim R 447 R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; (1999) 110 A Crim R 198 R v D (1997) 69 SASR 413 R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644; [2008] VSCA 75 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v N, SH [2010] SASCFC 74 R v Ocek [2018] NSWDC 349 R v Walsh (2002) 131 A Crim R 299; [2002] VSCA 98 RGM v R [2012] NSWCCA 89 Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 29 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56 The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Texts Cited: Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (NSW) Marie Shaw SC and Ben Doyle, "The Age of Statutes and its intersection with Fundamental Principles: An Illustration" (2019) 40 Adelaide Law Review 353 Sentencing Bench Book (NSW) The Hon Justice Geoffrey Nettle, "The Jurisprudence of the High Court of Australia on Sentencing", National Judicial College of Australia Conference, "Sentencing: New Challenges" (2018) Wigmore on Evidence, vol 9 (Chadbourn Rev. 1981) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vanda Russell Gould (Appellant / Respondent) Regina (Crown) Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC / D Barrow (Appellant / Respondent) J Single SC / T Epstein (Crown)