Johnson v R

Johnson has applied for leave to appeal against his sentences for multiple offences of robbery armed with a dangerous weapon, arguing that the sentences are manifestly excessive. The application was considered by the court, which had to determine whether the sentences were indeed manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the nature and gravity of the offences. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge did not properly account for the different nature of the offences on his criminal record, particularly given there were no prior robbery offences or offences of violence. The court examined the sentencing judge’s reasoning and found that the judge had appropriately considered the Form 1 offences and the applicant's criminal history, concluding that the weight given to personal deterrence was justified. The court further clarified that the sentencing judge's approach to considering these factors was within the permissible bounds, and there was no error in the manner in which the judge synthesised the sentence.

The court held that the applicant's argument that the sentencing judge failed to recognise the significantly less serious nature of the matters on the record was unfounded. The judge's brief reference to the lengthy criminal history was deemed accurate and sufficient. The court rejected the applicant’s assertion that the sentencing judge must have reasoned in an impermissible way and emphasised that the synthesis of a sentence is an instinctive process, not subject to rigid sequential consideration of each factor. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and denied the application for leave to appeal.