Legal Research
Cases
R v Johns

R v Johns

Case [2003] VSC 415 28 October 2003

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1506 of 2002

THE QUEEN

RYAN LEIGH JOHNS

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13, 14, 15, 16,17 and 21 October 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 October 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Johns
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 415

---

Criminal law – sentencing – manslaughter – young person involved in melee – unprovoked martial arts kick to the head of the victim – sentence of six years with non-parole period of three years and six months - Sentencing Act 1991, ss. 3 and 32.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Michelle Williams	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Philip Dunn QC	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Ryan Leigh Johns, you have been found guilty, after pleading guilty, to the manslaughter of Aaron Linskens. You were arraigned before the jury on the sole count of having murdered Mr Linskens and you pleaded not guilty to that count. But after four days of trial the Crown announced that it was prepared to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter by unlawful dangerous act in full satisfaction of the presentment. Thereupon you were re-arraigned and you pleaded guilty to that count, and the jury found you guilty as directed in accordance with your plea.

The facts

You were born on 23 January 1983, so that you are now only 20 years of age, and when the offence occurred in the early hours of 1 June 2002 you were only 19 years of age. Aaron Linskens was born on 17 December 1983, and therefore when you killed him he was only 18 years of age. The offence occurred at a large south-eastern suburban hotel of the sort at which large numbers of young people congregate in order to drink and socialise and enjoy live entertainment. You committed the offence shortly after closing time at about 2.00am, after you and the deceased and many other patrons had been served significant quantities of alcohol. There was a melee of a sort, which was not unusual at closing times at that hotel, and you were one of the participants.

As was customary on Friday evenings, beginning at about 6.00 pm on Friday 31 May 2002 a number of your friends gathered together with you at your mother’s home in Rowville, where you drank and conversed for a couple of hours. Thereafter some of your friends were collected and driven by another friend to the hotel and you and the remainder of your friends were driven by your mother to the hotel, arriving there at about 11.00 pm. After waiting for some time in the queue, you and your friends were admitted to a section of the hotel called “the Sports Bar”, and there you remained drinking and socialising until closing time at about 2.00 am the next morning.

Meanwhile, at about 6.30 pm on Friday 31 May 2002,…

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 [2003] VSC 415
Case: [2003] VSC 415
Decision Date: 28 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Johns, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter for his involvement in a violent altercation where he delivered a martial arts kick to the head of the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for this offence. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, while the Crown contended that the sentence was just and proportionate given the circumstances of the offence. The appeal centred on the application of the Sentencing Act 1991 and the principles governing sentencing for manslaughter, particularly in relation to young offenders.

The court was required to address whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and if not, whether the sentence should be varied. The key legal issues involved balancing the principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, with the need to consider the offender's age and the nature of his involvement in the incident. The court examined the principles of sentencing under sections 3 and 32 of the Sentencing Act 1991 and considered the appellant's age at the time of the offence, his previous good character, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and balanced the principles of sentencing. The court noted that while the appellant was a young person at the time of the offence, his actions were a significant departure from ordinary behaviour and warranted a substantial penalty. The sentence imposed, with a non-parole period of three years and six months, was deemed to achieve the aims of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The court also considered the appellant's age and background but found that these factors did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months was upheld. The court emphasised that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders