Johnson v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 348

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0442

MATTHEW CHARLES JOHNSON

THE QUEEN

and

S APCR 2010 0433

MARK ALAN MORGAN

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN JA and T FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	9 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 348	1^st Revision 10 November 2011, para 5
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Judge Chettle, County Court at Melbourne, 26 November 2010

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed robbery and aggravated burglary – Parity – Sentences of 16 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 13 years’ imprisonment and 8 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 6 years’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant Johnson	Mr C B Boyce	C D Traill
For the Appellant Morgan	Mr L C Carter	C D Traill
For the Respondent	Mr G J C Silbert SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

The appellants were arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing a number of counts arising from an armed robbery of a motor vehicle and an aggravated burglary which resulted in the theft of various items of property.

The appellant Johnson pleaded guilty to counts of armed robbery, aggravated burglary, theft and being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm. The appellant Morgan pleaded guilty to counts of receiving stolen goods, aggravated burglary and theft.

Pleas were conducted on behalf of the appellants.

The appellant Johnson was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 10 years on count 1, on the count of robbery, for a term of 7 years on the count of aggravated burglary, for a term of 3 years on the count of theft, and for a term of 4 years on the count of being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm. Some cumulation was ordered, creating a total effective sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment. A minimum term of 13 years’ imprisonment was fixed.

The appellant Morgan was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 3 years on the count of receiving stolen goods, for a term of 6 years on the count of aggravated burglary, and for a term of 3 years on the count of theft. With a measure of cumulation, a total effective sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment was fixed and it was ordered that the appellant serve a minimum term of 6 years’ imprisonment before he was to be eligible for parole.

The appellants have appealed against the sentences.

A woman, her 15‑year‑old daughter and a 15‑year‑old friend of the daughter were in a motor vehicle parked at McDonald’s in Doveton. Johnson and an unknown accomplice terrorised the occupants of the vehicle with a semi‑automatic handgun. Johnson pressed the handgun against the woman’s head. Her daughter was grabbed and punched twice by Johnson’s accomplice. Threats to kill or shoot the woman and her daughter…

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 [2011] VSCA 348
Case: [2011] VSCA 348
Decision Date: 9 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Johnson, the appellant, who was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated burglary. The Crown sought to appeal the sentences imposed by the lower court, arguing that they were manifestly excessive. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, particularly in terms of the minimum non-parole periods. The court considered whether there was a point of principle that would warrant interference with the lower court's sentencing discretion. The focus was on the principle of parity, ensuring that similar crimes are treated similarly in terms of sentencing.

The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The principles of parity were not infringed as the sentences reflected the gravity of the crimes and were consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences. The court held that there was no point of principle that warranted the court's interference with the lower court's decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed on Johnson was dismissed, and the original sentences stood as imposed by the lower court.

Orders