Johnson v The The Queen

[2022] NSWDC 299

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Johnson v R [2022] NSWDC 299

Hearing dates:

21 June 2022

Date of orders:

21 July 2022

Decision date:

21 July 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Scotting DCJ

Decision:

(1)   Appeal allowed in part.

(2)   The conviction for sequence 1 and the penalty imposed by the magistrate are set aside.

(3)   I will hear the parties on the sentence appeal relating to sequence 3.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

AGv Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218

Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82

Chararav R [2006] NSWCCA 244

GianoutsasvGlykis [2006] NSWCCA 137

Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186

McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298

R v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 141

R v Coe [2002] NSWCCA 385

Sanchez v R (2009) 196 A Crim R 472

The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Samuel Johnson (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) (Prosecutor)

Representation:

Counsel:
J Lang (Appellant)

Solicitors:
ODPP (Prosecutor)
Payten Ryan Le (Appellant)

File Number(s):

2021/121196
2021/116905

Publication restriction:

None

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Downing Centre Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Local Court

Date of Decision:

14 February 2022

Before:

Magistrate Bartley

File Number(s):

21/121196

Judgment

Introduction

1. On 14 February 2022, Samuel Johnson, (the appellant) was convicted of common assault (sequence 1) and destroying property (sequence 3) by a magistrate sitting at the Downing Centre Local Court. The appellant appeals as of right against those convictions.

2. The appellant and Elizabeth Karas (the complainant) had been living together in a domestic relationship since about July 2020 at a unit in Mascot. In the period leading up to the offences the relationship was troubled. There had been arguments that were leading to a break-up, which eventually occurred on 12 April 2021.

3. On 6 April 2021, the appellant took the complainant’s car without telling her where he was going and leaving his mobile telephone and licence at home. She eventually contacted his mother because she was worried about him. It was common ground that when the appellant returned home that he was angry that the complainant had contacted his mother, who had in turn contacted him. The complainant alleged that the appellant threw the car keys at her and that they struck her on the right cheek, without causing an injury. The appellant then left the unit for about two hours. When the appellant returned the complainant alleged that he went to the balcony of the unit and started throwing things off it. At some time a ceramic pot containing a plant was broken. The appellant broke it into smaller pieces and threw the pieces off the balcony into a vacant lot next door. The pot was the only item identified in the charge. Evidence was led of the appellant throwing other things off the balcony, that were not identified…