R v Johns (a pseudonym) - [2019] ACTSC 399

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Johns (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 399
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [38].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – national security information – where pleas of guilty entered at earliest opportunity – where defendant demonstrates remorse
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 16A
Cases Cited:	R v Lappas [2003] ACTCA 21; 152 ACTR 7 R v Scerba (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 359
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia Alan Johns (a pseudonym) ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel A Sprague (Crown) J Davidson (Attorney-General) K Ginges (Defendant)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Australian Government Solicitor (Attorney-General) Gabbedy Milson Lee ( Defendant)
File Number:	SCC 248 of 2018

BURNS J:

Alan Johns, [REDACTED] you entered pleas of guilty to five charges in the ACT Magistrates Court and you were committed to this Court for sentence. You have maintained your pleas of guilty and it now falls to me to sentence you for those offences. I will refer initially to the charge numbers in the statement of facts.

Charge 1 is a charge [REDACTED] alleging [REDACTED] you communicated information [REDACTED] and the communication was not made in circumstances as permitted [REDACTED].

[REDACTED].

Charge 2 is a charge [REDACTED] alleging that [REDACTED]. The particulars of this charge are that [REDACTED]. The maximum penalty for this offence is [REDACTED] years imprisonment and/or a fine of [REDACTED] penalty units.

Charge 3 is also a charge [REDACTED] alleging that [REDACTED]. The particulars of this charge are that [REDACTED].

Charge 4 is a charge [REDACTED] alleging that [REDACTED] you made a record of information or other matter [REDACTED] and the record was not made in circumstances permitted [REDACTED]. The particulars of this charge are [REDACTED]. This offence carries a maximum penalty of [REDACTED] years imprisonment and or a fine of [REDACTED] penalty units.

Charge 5 is a charge [REDACTED] alleging that [REDACTED] you communicated information [REDACTED] and the communication was not made as permitted [REDACTED]. The particulars of this charge are [REDACTED]. This offence also carries a maximum penalty of [REDACTED] years imprisonment and/or a fine of [REDACTED] penalty units.

An agreed comprehensive statement of facts was tendered at the sentence hearing. I will not read the statement of facts, but I will however refer to the facts in somewhat greater detail in the course of these reasons. It is important to give consideration to the maximum penalty prescribed by the legislature with respect to each of the offences. The maximum penalty indicates how seriously the legislature considers the offence. While the maximum is to be reserved for cases that fall within the category of the worst type of offence covered by that section, it acts as a yardstick to assisting in determining the appropriate penalty for individual offences that fall outside of the worst-case category.

[REDACTED].

ln sentencing you, I must consider the factors set out in s…

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 (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Johns (a pseudonym) [2019] ACTSC 399
Case: [2019] ACTSC 399
Decision Date: 18 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johns (a pseudonym) involved a dispute where the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of providing assistance to a foreign power in a way that was prejudicial to Australia's national security. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The defendant entered pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity and demonstrated remorse, which were factors considered in the sentencing process. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented.

The court examined the severity of the offence, which involved providing assistance to a foreign power that was detrimental to national security. Despite the defendant's early guilty pleas and remorse, the court noted the significant breach of trust and the potential harm caused to the nation. The court also considered the national security implications and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Ultimately, the court balanced these factors and determined an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant.

The Federal Court of Australia concluded that, while the defendant's remorse and early guilty plea were mitigating factors, they were not sufficient to significantly reduce the severity of the sentence. The court imposed a sentence that was intended to reflect the gravity of the offence and to serve as a deterrent against similar conduct. The court emphasized the importance of protecting national security and the trust placed in individuals who handle sensitive information. The sentence imposed was intended to balance the need for punishment with the mitigating factors presented by the defendant.

The court made several orders, including the imposition of a custodial sentence, a fine, and a requirement for the defendant to participate in a rehabilitation program. The specific details of the sentence and the orders were outlined in the judgment. The court also ordered that the defendant's name be included in a register of convicted persons for a specified period. The orders reflected the court's consideration of both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented by the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [38].

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.