Johnson v The Queen - [2010] NSWCCA 86

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Johnson v R [2010] NSWCCA 86
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 26 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Howie J at 2; Latham J at 3

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Conviction appeal - Murder (x2), Steal property from a dwelling, attempting to obtain money by deception (x3) - Crown case based on circumstantial evidence - Whether verdicts were unreasonable/unsupported by evidence - Whether trial was fair - Alleged misconduct by investigating police - Alleged defects in prosecution case - Alleged incompetent legal representation - Alleged error by trial judge in admitting evidence and exhibits - Alleged error by trial judge in directions to jury.

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
Steve v R [2008] NSWCCA 231

PARTIES: Peter James Johnson - Appellant
Regina - Crown Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/3414

COUNSEL: Self Represented - Appellant
M Grogan - Respondent Crown

SOLICITORS: Self Represented - Appellant
S Kavanagh (Solicitor of Public Prosecutions) - Respondent Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/1229

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Whealy J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 7 March 2007

2006/3414

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HOWIE J
LATHAM J
7 MAY 2010

PETER JAMES JOHNSON v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL : I agree with Latham J.

2 HOWIE J : I agree with Latham J.

3 LATHAM J : The appellant challenges his conviction after a trial concluding on 7 March 2007 on two counts of murder, one count of steal property from a dwelling, three counts of attempting to obtain money by deception, and 12 counts of obtaining money by deception. All of the offences arose out of the strangulation of a retired married couple who were well known to the appellant and lived on a rural property near Windsor, NSW. In the days following the murders on 23 September 2005, a number of bank accounts in their names were unlawfully accessed by the offender.

4 It was the appellant’s case at trial that he was not the offender. There was no dispute that the person who had murdered the victims in their home had taken their property and used their bankcards to obtain cash. The only issue was whether the Crown’s circumstantial case satisfied the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was that person.

5 The appellant, who represented himself on the appeal and demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the evidence at trial and the nature of the circumstantial case against him, essentially submits that the trial was unfair and that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, because of perceived inadequacies in the nature and quality of some of the evidence, and the alleged incompetence of his legal representatives. The appellant also maintains that the verdicts of the jury were unreasonable and cannot be supported, having regard…

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 Johnson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Johnson v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 86
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 86
Decision Date: 7 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johnson appealed his convictions for two counts of murder, stealing property from a dwelling, and three counts of attempting to obtain money by deception. The case was heard in the court of criminal appeal. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, the fairness of the trial, alleged misconduct by police, defects in the prosecution case, alleged incompetent legal representation, and alleged errors by the trial judge in admitting evidence and directing the jury.

The court considered the sufficiency and cogency of the evidence, the fairness of the trial, and the alleged errors made by the trial judge. The court found that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to support the verdicts and that the trial was fair. The court also found that the alleged misconduct by police, defects in the prosecution case, alleged incompetent legal representation, and alleged errors by the trial judge did not undermine the fairness of the trial or the safety of the convictions.

The appeal was dismissed. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts and that the trial was fair. The court also found that the alleged errors made by the trial judge did not affect the safety of the convictions. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Orders