Legal Research
Cases
R v Johnson

R v Johnson

Case [2022] NSWSC 404 8 April 2022

Sentencing

Self-Defence

Aggravating & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson [2022] NSWSC 404
Hearing dates: 18 February 2022
Date of orders: 8 April 2022
Decision date: 08 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 9 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 6 years and 4 months.

Catchwords:
CRIMES — sentencing — manslaughter — self‑defence with excessive force — aggravating factors

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
GG v R [2018] NSWCCA 280
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Lai v R [2021] NSWCCA 217
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Pitts v R [2014] NSWCCA 244
R v Black (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 77
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358
R v Fuller [2020] NSWSC 1580.
R v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 184; (2004) 147 A Crim R 250
R v Johnson [2021] NSWSC 1405
R v MD; R v BM; R v NA; R v JT [2005] NSWCCA 34; (2005) 156 A Crim R 372
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Smith [2021] NSWSC 928
R v Warren Scott (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1646
Ryan v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
Turnbull v R [2019] NSWCCA 97
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Shaun Garry Johnson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Adams SC (Crown)
C Watson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/405914
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 26 December 2019, Shaun Garry Johnson (the offender) killed Steven Michael O’Brien (Mr O’Brien) whilst the offender was at Mr O’Brien’s home.
He did so by lacerating Mr O’Brien in the neck with a sharp implement that he used as a weapon.
The offender was charged with the murder of Mr O’Brien contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He stood trial during the period commencing 19 October 2021 before me, sitting as a Judge alone.
On 4 November 2021 I found that the offender was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
As set out in my judgment dated 4 November 2021,^[1] the offender admitted that he killed Mr O’Brien but maintained that he did so in self-defence, albeit, that he acted with excessive force in doing so.
1. R v Johnson [2021] NSWSC 1405 (“Johnson”).
The trial was conducted on the basis that he did kill Mr O’Brien and…

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 Johnson

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson [2022] NSWSC 404
Case: [2022] NSWSC 404
Decision Date: 08 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Johnson, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around whether the force used by Johnson in self-defence was proportionate to the threat he faced, and whether the court should consider certain factors as aggravating the offence. The prosecution argued that the force used was excessive, while Johnson claimed he acted in self-defence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the force used by Johnson was justified under self-defence and, if so, whether the court should consider any aggravating factors that would increase the severity of the sentence. The court had to determine the proportionality of the force used and whether the defendant's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to examine the impact of any aggravating factors on the sentencing process.

The court found that while Johnson's actions were initially in self-defence, the force used was excessive and therefore did not constitute a lawful defence. The court highlighted that the use of lethal force was not justified by the threat Johnson faced. In considering aggravating factors, the court noted that Johnson had a prior history of violence, which influenced the sentencing. The combination of these factors led to a more severe sentence than would have been imposed in the absence of such considerations.

The final orders of the court were that Johnson be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the manslaughter and the aggravating factors present in the case. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Orders