R v Johnson - [2018] ACTSC 137

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Johnson
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 137
Hearing Dates:	29 January 2018, 7 May 2018
DecisionDate:	7 May 2018
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [33]–[34]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – aggravated robbery in company – young offender – history of illicit drug use – consideration of illicit drug use rehabilitation – intensive corrections order
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310(a)
Parties:	The Crown (Crown) Jake Alexander Johnson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K McCann (Crown) P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 281 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Jake Alexander Johnson has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery in company in contravention of s 310(a) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $375,000 or both.

The offender pleaded guilty on 6 October 2017 at the fourth mention date, following the preparation of a brief of evidence. While the plea was not at the earliest possible opportunity, it was an early plea and has significant utilitarian value. As a result of the guilty plea, I will allow a reduction of 20 per cent of the length of a custodial sentence that I would otherwise have imposed.

Facts

The offence in question occurred on 21 April 2016. As at that date, the offender was 19 years old. It involved a male and female co-offender, both of whom were under the age of 18. I will refer to them as co-offender 1 and co-offender 2, respectively. Co-offender 1 knew the victim as they had attended school together. On 21 April 2016, co-offender 1 and the victim had a conversation on the Facebook messenger app and co-offender 1 agreed to pay the victim if he would drive him around that day in order to do a number of errands.

The victim was driving a blue 2009 Holden Commodore sedan which was owned by his father, but which he regularly drove. The victim picked up co-offender 1 and they drove to various locations. Co-offender 1 asked the victim to park outside Stromlo High School. Co-offender 1 said that he was waiting for two female friends. A male and female walked towards the vehicle and the co-offender said that they were not his friends. They were the offender and co-offender 2. The offender and co-offender 2 approached the vehicle and asked for directions. The offender unsheathed a knife and placed it inside the driver’s door, saying “get out of the fucking car”. Co-offender 2 shouted at the offender to punch the victim. The offender used a closed fist to punch the victim in the eye. This resulted in a black eye and redness to his right cheek area. The victim exited the vehicle and ran onto the road stopping an ACTION bus to ask for assistance. The offender got into the driver’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 Johnson

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson [2018] ACTSC 137
Case: [2018] ACTSC 137
Decision Date: 7 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson involved the defendant, Johnson, who was charged with aggravated robbery in company. The dispute arose during sentencing, with the court tasked with determining an appropriate punishment for Johnson's criminal activity, taking into account his history of illicit drug use and potential for rehabilitation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate sentencing framework for aggravated robbery in company, the impact of Johnson's history of illicit drug use on his culpability and rehabilitation potential, and whether an intensive corrections order would be an appropriate sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, which include deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The judge acknowledged Johnson's history of drug use but focused on his potential for rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offence. The court held that an intensive corrections order would allow for supervision and rehabilitation efforts, and would also serve to protect the community. The judge concluded that such an order would be a suitable sentence, balancing the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court ordered that Johnson be subject to an intensive corrections order for a specified period. This decision recognised the importance of addressing Johnson's underlying issues while also ensuring public safety and providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court's reasoning reflected a balanced approach to sentencing, considering both the seriousness of the offence and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [33]–[34]

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.