Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Johnson

DPP v Johnson

Case [2002] VSC 583 20 December 2002

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 5479 of 2002
No. 5477 of 2002
No. 5476 of 2002
No. 5478 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

MATHEW CHARLES JOHNSON

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SEAN JASON SONNET

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JASON BRIAN PAISLEY

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

STEPHEN WENITONG

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8-11, 14 OCTOBER 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 DECEMBER 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v JOHNSON & ORS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 583

---

contempt – Intention or tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr C. Ryan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Mr Johnson	Mr R. Sarah
For Mr Sonnet	Mr G. Meredith	Reiner Martini
For Mr Paisley	Mr M. Taft	Starry Myall
For Mr Wenitong	Mr A. Lewis	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

Preliminary

This is the determination of proceedings for contempt of court brought pursuant to Order 75 of Chapter 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The proceedings arise out of the trial of the respondents Jason Brian Paisley, Stephen Wenitong, Mathew Charles Johnson and Sean Jason Sonnet, together with another man, John Wallace Lindrea, before the County Court at Melbourne in September 2000.

The accused in that trial were arraigned on charges arising out of incidents which occurred at Barwon Prison on 1 October 1998. It was alleged that they:

(a)intentionally and without lawful excuse damaged a glass window belonging to Her Majesty; and
(b)without lawful excuse intentionally caused serious injury to Gregory John Brazel.

The offences forming the subject matter of the trial arose out of the breaking of a security window onto an exercise yard in which Brazel was situated and the subsequent severe bashing of Brazel after a group of men entered the yard through the broken window.

All the accused pleaded not guilty and on 27 September 2000 the jury acquitted Lindrea and Wenitong on all counts and the other accused on the first count. Paisley, Sonnet and Johnson were convicted on the second count. These convictions were in turn set aside by the Court of Appeal on 20 December 2001[1] and a retrial was ordered.
[1]R v Johnson, Sonnet and Paisley [2001] VSCA 242

The matters first came before the learned trial Judge on 31 July 2000. Brazel was not then a witness on the presentment before the Court and it appears that he had not at that time made a statement to the police. The Crown Prosecutor told the Court it was not proposed to call Brazel as a witness. Defence counsel sought to have the Crown call him. After a short adjournment the Crown Prosecutor informed the Court that Brazel had indicated he would make a statement and an adjournment of the trial was granted. Thereafter Brazel made a statement and the respondent Wenitong was presented as an additional accused on the basis of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Johnson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Johnson [2002] VSC 583
Case: [2002] VSC 583
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Johnson, the respondent, a lawyer, was charged with criminal contempt for comments made to the media about a pending case. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which held jurisdiction to address the serious matter of alleged interference with the administration of justice. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent's comments, which included expressing an opinion on the merits of a case, amounted to contempt. This issue required the court to consider whether such comments had the potential to undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

The court examined whether the respondent's comments could be reasonably understood as having an intention or tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. The court found that, while the freedom of expression was a fundamental right, it was not absolute and could be curtailed when it posed a significant risk to the integrity of legal proceedings. The court held that the comments made by the respondent were capable of influencing the outcome of the pending case by prejudicing potential jurors or witnesses. Consequently, the court found that the comments had the potential to undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The court ruled that the respondent's comments constituted contempt as they had the intention or tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and stressed that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty to uphold the integrity of legal proceedings. The court's decision underscored the need for lawyers to exercise restraint in their public comments about ongoing cases to avoid compromising the fairness of the judicial process.

Orders