JOHNSON -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 207

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 207
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:58/2001	Heard:	20 JULY 2004
Coram:	MCKECHNIE J LE MIERE J JENKINS J	Delivered:	14/09/04
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed, Appellant re-sentenced
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CHAD JOHNSON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Possession of ecstasy and cocaine One parcel two packets Extent to which common elements present No new principles
Legislation:	Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c)
Case References:	Attorney-General (SA) v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Johnson v The Queen (2002) 26 WAR 336 Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; 205 ALR 346 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Brittain (2001) 121 A Crim R 525 Brittain v The Queen [2001] WASCA 92 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Mustafa v The Queen (2002) 27 WAR 73 Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284 Wilkins (1988) 38 A Crim R 445

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : JOHNSON -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 207 CORAM : MCKECHNIE J

LE MIERE J

JENKINS J

HEARD : 20 JULY 2004 DELIVERED : 14 SEPTEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 58 of 2001 BETWEEN : CHAD JOHNSON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : SCOTT J

File Number : INS 45 of 2001

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Possession of ecstasy and cocaine - One parcel two packets - Extent to which common elements present - No new principles

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(c)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Appellant re-sentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D Grace QC & Mr M L Tudori

Respondent : Mr H G Dembo & Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Appellant : Michael Tudori

Respondent : Commonwealth Deputy Director of Public

Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Attorney-General (SA) v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84
Johnson v The Queen (2002) 26 WAR 336
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; 205 ALR 346
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Case(s) also cited:

Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84
Brittain (2001) 121 A Crim R 525
Brittain v The Queen [2001] WASCA 92
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Mustafa v The Queen (2002) 27 WAR 73
Ruane (1979) 1 A Crim R 284
Wilkins (1988) 38 A Crim R 445

(Page 3)

MCKECHNIE J

Jurisdiction of this coram

1 I deal first with a matter raised at the commencement of the appeal by counsel for the respondent who said:

"…those who instruct me have asked me to raise the query as to whether this…

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 [2004] WASCA 207
Case: [2004] WASCA 207
Decision Date: 14 SEPTEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johnson v The Queen involved the appellant, Johnson, who was sentenced for possession of ecstasy and cocaine. Johnson was found to have two separate parcels, each containing two packets, one of ecstasy and one of cocaine. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the parcels should be treated as a single offence or as separate offences. The case was heard in the Australian court of appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the two parcels should be considered a single offence or two separate offences. The court examined the extent to which the common elements of the offences were present. The court was required to decide if there was a sufficient connection between the two parcels to warrant treating them as a single offence or if they were distinct transactions that should be considered separately. The court had to consider the principles established in previous cases and determine if any new principles should be applied.

The court determined that there were sufficient common elements present to warrant treating the two parcels as a single offence. The court found that the common elements of the offences, such as the intent to possess the drugs and the timing of the possession, were closely linked. The court concluded that the two parcels should be treated as a single offence rather than two separate offences. The court found that the principles established in previous cases were applicable and did not require the creation of any new principles. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The court did not provide specific details on the new sentence imposed on Johnson. The decision confirmed that the two parcels should be treated as a single offence for sentencing purposes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed, Appellant re-sentenced

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.