DPP v Johnston

The case before the court was an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence handed down to a defendant in a case involving serious criminal activity related to an industrial dispute. The defendant had been found guilty of engaging in a deliberately planned affray at two industrial premises, common assault, and intentionally causing damage to property. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended, and a fine of $10,000 was manifestly inadequate. The appeal raised questions about the principles applicable to sentencing appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the appropriate weight to be given to factors such as the lack of remorse demonstrated by the offender.

The court considered the elements of the offence of affray, particularly in the context of an affray occurring on private premises where the victims were likely to be terrified for their safety. The court examined the nature of the offending, which was premeditated and not part of a genuine industrial dispute, and the risk of reoffending. The sentencing judge had found that the offender showed no remorse and had deliberately refused to submit that they were remorseful. The court found no error in this assessment by the sentencing judge. The court also considered the total effective sentence imposed, which was a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment and a substantial fine.

After considering the principles applicable to sentencing appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The court took into account the premeditated nature of the offending, the lack of remorse demonstrated by the offender, and the risk of reoffending. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was upheld.