Johns v The Queen

In Johns v The Queen, the applicant appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury to another person in circumstances of gross violence under the Crimes Act 1958. The applicant was involved in a head-on collision with a truck, and the victim was the driver of the truck. The appeal against conviction argued that the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, as it was not open to the jury to find that the applicant foresaw the probable risk of serious injury to the victim, given the marked disparity between the size and weight of the vehicles. The appeal against sentence contended that the judge applied the wrong test when considering whether 'special reasons' existed to justify imposing a non-parole period of less than four years, and that this error constituted a 'material' error that vitiated the sentencing discretion.

The court found that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to support the verdict of reckless causing of serious injury, given the marked disparity between the size and weight of the vehicles. The court also found that the judge's error in applying the wrong test when considering the non-parole period was not a 'material' error that vitiated the sentencing discretion. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the order for concurrency was adequate. The court refused the application for leave to appeal against conviction but granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence. However, the appeal against sentence was ultimately dismissed.

In summary, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The court found that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to support the verdict. The court granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence, but ultimately dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court found that the judge's error in applying the wrong test when considering the non-parole period was not a'material' error that vitiated the sentencing discretion, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.