R v Johnson

Case [2023] NSWDC 541

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JOHNSON [2023] NSWDC 541
Hearing dates: 30 November 2023
Date of orders: 5 December 2023
Decision date: 05 December 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced – see paragraphs [58]-[61]

Catchwords:

CRIMES – enter building with intent - aggravated break and enter – destroy property by fire – drive conveyance without consent of owner – drive manner dangerous in a police pursuit – knowingly be carried in stolen conveyance

SENTENCING – Bugmy factors – drug use - approaching institutionalisation – specific general deterrence – parity with co-offender

Legislation Cited:

Road Transport Act, 2013

Crimes Act, 1900

Criminal Procedure Act, 1986

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Byrne & Cahill v R [2021] NSWCCA 185

Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141

Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex
Peter JOHNSON
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr T Jackson, for the Offender

Solicitors:
Ms G Knight, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr S Groch, Tankards Law
File Number(s): 2022/393218
Publication restriction: No

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender appeared at the Wagga Wagga District Court and adhered to pleas of guilty entered on 4 October 2023 at the Local Court in respect of the following charges (in the order they appear on the Crown Bundle cover sheet):

H75688227

  1. Enter Building with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence, contrary to s 114(1)(d) of the Crimes Act, 1900 (sequence 1); and

  2. Aggravated Break Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence (larceny) contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act (sequence 3); and

  3. Destroy or Damage Property by Fire in company, contrary to s 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act (sequence 5); and

  4. Knowingly Drive Stolen Conveyance, contrary to s 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act (sequence 8); and

  5. Drive in a Manner Dangerous in a Police Pursuit, contrary to s 51B(1) of the Crimes Act (sequence 11); and

  6. Knowingly be Carried in Stolen Conveyance, contrary to s 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act (sequence 12).

  1. In addition, there are two summary matters attaching to a Certificate Pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1986, in respect of which pleas of guilty were entered, namely:

  1. Drive in a Manner Dangerous to the Public, contrary to s 117(2) of the Road Transport Act, 2013 (sequence 9); and

  2. Drive Unlicensed – never licensed, contrary to s 53(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act (sequence 10).

  1. As pleas of guilty to all matters were entered at an early stage the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty.

  2. The maximum penalties provided in respect of the offences for which the offender appears for sentence, again in the order set out at paragraph 1 of these reasons are:

  1. 7 years imprisonment;

  2. 20 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 5 years;

  3. 11 years imprisonment;

  4. 5 years imprisonment

  5. 3 years imprisonment; and

  6. 5…

Continue reading R v Johnson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 541
Case
[2023] NSWDC 541
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Johnson, the defendant was charged with multiple offences including entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence, committing an aggravated break and enter with intent, damaging property by fire, driving a conveyance without the owner's consent, driving in a dangerous manner during a police pursuit, and knowingly being carried in a stolen conveyance. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Logan. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues central to this case were the severity and nature of the defendant's criminal conduct, his personal circumstances, and the appropriate balance between specific and general deterrence in sentencing. The court was also required to consider the Bugmy factors, which include the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the principle of parity with co-offenders. The defendant's drug use and his state of approaching institutionalisation were considered as mitigating factors.

Justice Logan, in delivering the judgment, emphasised the gravity of the defendant's actions, particularly the danger posed to the public during the police pursuit and the destruction caused by the fire. Despite the mitigating factors, the court found that the offences warranted a substantial custodial sentence. After considering the Bugmy factors and the need for general deterrence, the court determined that a sentence of six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years, was appropriate. This sentence also took into account the need for parity with the defendant's co-offender.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, reflecting the court's considerations of the offence's gravity, the need for deterrence, and the Bugmy factors.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced – see paragraphs [58]-[61]

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.