R v Johnson - [2019] ACTSC 117

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Johnson
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 117
Hearing Date:	1 February 2019; 7 May 2019
DecisionDate:	9 May 2019
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [27]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –firearms offences – unauthorised possession of firearms and ammunition – drug offences – trafficable quantity of cannabis – Intensive Corrections Order – deemed not suitable – term of imprisonment
Legislation:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 603(5) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 42(a)(iii), 43(1)(a)(iii), 180(1)(a)(i), 249(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Johnson [2018] ACTSC 137
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jake Alexander Johnson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K McCann (Crown) Mr P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 96 of 2018; SCC 97 of 2018; SCC 104 of 2018; SCC 105 of 2018

ELKAIM J:

On 26 November 2018 the offender entered a plea of guilty to the following three charges in an indictment dated 23 May 2018:

(a)Unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s 42(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (Firearms Act). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. The offence took place on 14 November 2017.
(b)Unauthorised possession of a firearm contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act. The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment. The offence took place on 15 November 2017.
(c)Trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis, contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150,000, or both. The offence occurred on 15 November 2017.

There are also five additional related charges which have been transferred from the Magistrates Court. Only three of those charges proceeded. Those offences and their maximum penalties are as follows:

(a)Two charges of failing to comply with storage requirements (CC2018/757; CC2018/760), contrary to s 180(1)(a)(i) of the Firearms Act, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment; and
(b)One charge of possessing ammunition generally (CC758/2018), contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act, with a maximum penalty of a fine of $1,500.

The Crown noted that the balance of the transfer charges (CC761/2018 and CC776/2018) are no longer relevant and accordingly, I will dismiss these charges.

I heard submissions on sentencing on 7 May 2019 but adjourned the imposition of the sentences until today. This was because, as seen from Exhibit 1, the offender punched a wall on 22 April 2019. The reason for him doing so is unclear but he did manage to at least fracture one of his fingers and there is perhaps additional injury. His need for further medical review, and possible treatment, led me to delay final sentencing for two days.

The details of the offences can be found in the Statement of Facts included in Exhibit A. By way of summary, on 14 November 2017, police were called to an…

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 [2019] ACTSC 117
Case: [2019] ACTSC 117
Decision Date: 9 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson involved the respondent, Johnson, who was charged with multiple offences, including unauthorised possession of firearms and ammunition, as well as possession of a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the respondent's criminal activities. The court had to weigh the severity of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation in order to reach a just outcome.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the appropriate sentence for the respondent's multiple offences, and determining whether an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) was suitable. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation through an ICO. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate term of imprisonment if an ICO was deemed unsuitable.

In reaching its decision, the court noted the seriousness of the respondent's offences, including the possession of firearms and ammunition, and the possession of a significant quantity of cannabis. The court considered the respondent's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences. The court found that an Intensive Corrections Order was not suitable for the respondent due to the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the respondent's history of non-compliance with previous orders. Consequently, the court imposed a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent, Johnson, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the offences of unauthorised possession of firearms and ammunition, and possession of a trafficable quantity of cannabis. The court deemed an Intensive Corrections Order unsuitable, and instead imposed a term of imprisonment, which was to be determined by the specific details and considerations outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [27]

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.