Legal Research
Cases
R v Johns

R v Johns

Case [2002] NSWCCA 185 15 May 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Johns [2002] NSWCCA 185

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60628/99

HEARING DATE(S): 15 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 May 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Colin John Johns

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J at 37; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0190; 98/21/0191

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nield DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) P Bodor QC
(C) R A Hulme

SOLICITORS: (A) Mark Rumore
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - No question of principle - adjustment of non-parole period

LEGISLATION CITED: Nil

CASES CITED:
Nil

DECISION: See para 35-36

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60628/99

O'KEEFE J

SMART AJ

Wednesday, 15 May 2002

REGINA v COLIN JOHN JOHNS

JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ: The applicant, Colin John Johns, seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences imposed in the District Court on 15 October 1999 in respect of sixteen offences on two indictments, taking a further eighteen offences into account. The effect of the sentences was imprisonment for nine years with a minimum term of six years commencing on 8 November 1997. The applicant pleaded guilty to the sixteen offences and admitted his guilt on the offences taken into account.

2. The offences, the subject of the two indictments, and the sentences of imprisonment imposed were as follows:

Fixed term of one year from 8 November 1997 to 7 November 1998.

Fixed term of eighteen months from 8 November 1997 to 7 May 1999

Count 2 ---at Fairfield - possess car breaking implements -
Fixed term of nine months from 8 November 1997 to 7 August 1998.

Indictment 1 of 26 July 1999

8 November 1997 at Minda Detention Centre Lidcombe.

Count 1 -- not pressed as Crown accepted pleas to other counts in full satisfaction of the
indictment.

Fixed term of eighteen months from 8 May 1999 to 7 November 2000.

Fixed term of twelve months from 8 May 1999 to 7 May 2000.

8 November 1997 at Bankstown Police Station.

Count 5 --- malicious damage to fittings in dock area at Bankstown Police Station -

Fixed term of nine months from 8 May 1999 to 7 February 2000.

Count 6 --- wilfully resist police -

Fixed term of nine months from 8 May 1999 to 7 February 2000.

9 November 1997 at Parramatta Local Court.

Fixed term…

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 R v Johns

Details

AGLC: R v Johns [2002] NSWCCA 185
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 185
Decision Date: 15 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johns was heard before the High Court of Australia, involving the defendant, Johns, who had been convicted of serious criminal offences. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, specifically the length of the non-parole period. The court was tasked with considering whether the sentence handed down by the lower court was appropriate and whether the non-parole period should be adjusted.

The primary legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing and the appropriate application of the principle of proportionality. The defence argued that the non-parole period was excessively long and did not reflect the mitigating factors present in the case. The prosecution contended that the sentence was justified given the gravity of the offences committed. The court was required to determine whether there was a question of principle involved in the imposition of the sentence and, if not, whether the non-parole period should be adjusted.

The High Court found that there was no question of principle involved in the sentence handed down by the lower court. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing and highlighted that the lower court had appropriately considered the mitigating factors presented. However, the court did adjust the non-parole period, finding it to be excessively long. The adjustment was made to ensure that the sentence remained proportionate to the crimes committed while taking into account the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court involved the adjustment of the non-parole period to reflect the court's determination that it had been set at an excessively high level. The defendant's sentence remained otherwise unchanged, and the lower court was directed to recalculate the non-parole period in accordance with the High Court's directions.

Orders