• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.

The offences were committed in February and March 2021. The judgment describes 186 video recordings made on 22 occasions between 9 February and 13 March 2021. They involved 12 women, aged between 15 and 49, recorded in their homes. Some recordings showed the women fully or partially naked, and others showed them showering. Most did not know they had been recorded until authorities approached them ([5], [7]).

The possession offence involved almost 9,000 images and more than 200 videos stored on two mobile phones and a hard drive. The judgment says the images depicted sexual violation of male and female children, including children aged about four to 12, and included unprotected penile sexual intercourse ([8]).

On 6 September 2023, the District Court imposed three years’ imprisonment for each of the privacy offences and two years and six months for the child exploitation material offence. The sentences were ordered to be served cumulatively. The sentencing judge declared 793 days in pre-sentence custody to be time served under the sentences and set a parole eligibility date of 6 September 2023 ([2]).

Goodwin applied to the Court of Appeal after the deadline for seeking leave to appeal had passed. He said he had not known of a time limit and had focused on obtaining parole in accordance with his eligibility date ([3]). If granted an extension, he proposed to argue that the sentences were manifestly excessive. He contended that concurrent sentences totalling about four years should have been imposed, taking account of time already spent in custody for his earlier offending ([4], [13]).

The Court refused the extension. Boddice JA gave the reasons, with Brown JA and Bradley JA agreeing ([24]–[27]). The operative order was that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal sentence be refused ([27]).

Why the court decided this way

The Court’s central conclusion was that the proposed appeal ground had no prospect of success. In its view, granting an extension in those circumstances would be futile ([23]). The judgment therefore addresses the proposed sentencing challenge as the reason the time-extension application could not succeed.

First, the Court considered the offences to involve separate criminality. The privacy offences concerned repeated, appalling invasions of the privacy of women in their own homes. The child exploitation material offence concerned thousands of graphic images depicting serious abuse of young children. Boddice JA concluded that this distinct and serious conduct warranted cumulative imprisonment ([16]).

Second, the Court considered the applicant’s criminal history and the sentencing purposes identified by the sentencing judge. In 2014, Goodwin had received an effective head sentence of eight years for offending that included making, distributing and possessing child exploitation material and 126 privacy offences. The sentence also covered other offences, including sexual assaults and indecent treatment of children. His parole expired months before the current offending, which occurred about six months after release from custody ([5]–[6]).

The Court accepted that, given this history and the current offending, deterrence and denunciation were significant. It said a sentence as low as four years would not appropriately reflect the need for both personal and general deterrence ([17]). It also considered that the current offences were committed shortly after Goodwin had completed parole for earlier offending, some of it similar. In that context, the Court said that the mitigating factors could not be said to demonstrate genuine prospects of rehabilitation ([18]).

Third, the Court rejected two alleged errors in the sentencing process. Goodwin argued that the sentencing judge had misunderstood his criminal history. The Court found that the history had been accurately recorded and that the fact of the prior offences was relevant, rather than the period over which they had allegedly been committed ([20]–[21]). Goodwin also disputed reliance on psychiatric-report observations characterised as a concession that he had decided jail “was not that bad” and would commit further offences. The Court said the psychiatrist’s account accurately reflected what Goodwin admitted saying about feeling institutionalised and sometimes believing life was easier in prison ([14], [22]).

Bringing these matters together, Boddice JA concluded that the three-year sentences for the privacy offences and the cumulative two-and-a-half-year sentence for possession of child exploitation material fell within a sound exercise of sentencing discretion ([19]). The Court did not accept the proposed concurrent sentence of about four years as a basis for a viable appeal. Since the proposed ground could not succeed, the Court refused the extension ([23]–[24]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to alter or restate a general rule of sentencing law, and it does not cite legislation or earlier appellate decisions. Its stated reasoning is case-specific. It applies sentencing considerations to the facts before the Court: separate criminality, seriousness, prior similar offending, the timing of the offending after parole, and the importance of personal and general deterrence ([16]–[19]).

The decision’s procedural reasoning is also expressed in relation to this application. Goodwin was out of time, and the Court examined the proposed appeal ground before deciding whether an extension should be granted. It concluded that, because the ground had no prospect of success, allowing more time to pursue it would be futile ([3], [23]). The judgment does not set out a comprehensive test for extensions of time, nor does it specify other factors that might apply in a different application.

Accordingly, the “before and after” distinction here is not a change in doctrine established by the reasons. Before the decision, Goodwin sought more time to challenge his sentence; after the decision, that request had been refused. The judgment illustrates the Court’s assessment of the proposed ground in this particular procedural setting, rather than announcing a new general sentencing principle.

For sentencing analysis, the reasons show how the Court related cumulative sentencing to the distinct character of separate offending. It did not treat the privacy offences and possession offence as one undifferentiated course of conduct for the purpose of the applicant’s proposed comparison with a concurrent four-year term. It emphasised their different victims and harms, together with the applicant’s previous relevant history ([16]–[18]). The reasons do not give a general formula for determining when sentences must be cumulative or concurrent.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [16], Boddice JA said: “Such separate serious conduct warranted cumulative sentences of imprisonment.” In plain English, the Court treated the privacy offences and the possession of child exploitation material as distinct serious wrongdoing. Their separate character supported sentences served one after another, rather than the proposed concurrent approach.

At [17], the Court said: “A sentence as low as 4 years would not have appropriately reflected those factors, particularly when regard is had for the need for both personal and general deterrence.” In plain English, the Court considered that the proposed overall sentence would not adequately reflect the seriousness and history it had identified, including the need to deter Goodwin personally and to discourage offending more generally.

At [18], Boddice JA connected the offending’s timing with the assessment of rehabilitation. The offences occurred shortly after Goodwin completed parole for earlier offending, some of which was similar. The Court concluded that, against that background, mitigation could not be said to evidence genuine prospects of rehabilitation. This was a conclusion about the circumstances presented in the case, not a statement that release after parole always has that significance.

At [21], the Court said that the “fact of the commission” of the previous offences was relevant, rather than the time period over which it had been submitted those offences were committed. The practical point is that the Court considered the sentencing judge’s account accurate and did not accept the proposed error based on the asserted duration of the earlier offending.

At [22], the Court addressed the psychiatric report by referring to Goodwin’s admission that, at difficult times, he believed life was easier in prison and that he felt institutionalised. The Court’s point was that the sentencing judge’s reference to the psychiatrist’s observations was not, in the Court’s view, an inaccurate account of the material.

Finally, at [23], Boddice JA said that granting an extension would be “futile” because the proposed ground had no prospect of success. In plain English, the procedural application failed because the Court saw no viable sentence argument that further time would enable Goodwin to pursue.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to applications for extra time to pursue a sentence appeal where the Court assesses the substance of the proposed ground and concludes that it has no prospect of success. The judgment links that assessment to the conclusion that an extension would be futile ([23]). It does not establish that lack of merit is the only consideration in every extension application.

Its sentencing analysis may be relevant to cases involving multiple categories of serious offending, particularly where an applicant argues that sentences should have been served concurrently. The Court treated repeated privacy offences and possession of extensive child exploitation material as distinct criminality warranting cumulative sentences ([16]). A relevant factual feature was that the offending involved many victims and recordings in private homes, alongside a separate possession offence involving thousands of images and hundreds of videos ([7]–[8]).

The prior-history discussion may also matter where a sentencing challenge disputes the weight given to previous similar convictions or the relationship between release on parole and subsequent offending. Here, the Court emphasised that the new offences were committed about six months after release and shortly after the completion of parole, against a history that included similar offending ([6], [17]–[18]). The reasons do not say that those features will have the same weight in every case.

The decision is less directly informative where the proposed appeal raises a different legal error, where the criminal history or sentencing material is disputed on different grounds, or where the seriousness and structure of the offending differ. The judgment contains no extended discussion of the governing statutory framework or a general approach to sentence appeal grounds. Its value lies in the particular reasoning and facts recorded in the reasons.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later cases and was delivered on 21 August 2025. It therefore provides no evidence in the material supplied about how subsequent courts have treated R v Goodwin. No later application, distinction, approval or criticism can be identified from this judgment alone.

The decision itself records that Brown JA and Bradley JA agreed with Boddice JA’s reasons ([25]–[26]). It does not identify any other authority as applied, followed, distinguished or otherwise considered. The precedent relationship list is therefore empty in this analysis.

For research purposes, any account of later treatment would need to be checked against later judgments and other relevant legal sources. That history cannot be inferred from the fact that the Court of Appeal delivered this decision or from its reasoning in this case.

Still-open questions

The judgment does not explain the broader procedural test for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal sentence. It records Goodwin’s explanation that he was unaware of the time limit and focused on parole, but the Court’s stated reason for refusal is that his proposed ground had no prospect of success ([3], [23]). The reasons do not assess how the explanation for delay might be weighed in a case where the proposed ground is arguable.

Nor does the judgment set out a general method for deciding whether separate offences require cumulative rather than concurrent sentences. It explains why cumulative sentences were appropriate on these facts: the privacy offences and possession offence involved separate serious conduct ([16]). It does not give a general rule for other combinations of offences.

The reasons likewise do not specify how much weight should ordinarily be given to a prior sentence, completed parole, or similar offending. They explain how those matters informed this assessment of deterrence and rehabilitation ([6], [17]–[18]). The extent to which the considerations apply in another case would depend on its facts and the applicable legal sources, which are not elaborated in this judgment.

Finally, the decision does not address any proposed appeal ground beyond manifest excessiveness and the related complaints about the criminal history and psychiatric report. It therefore does not resolve how different alleged sentencing errors would be considered.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.