R v Johnson - [2018] ACTSC 128

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Johnson
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 128
Hearing Date:	18 April 2018
DecisionDate:	18 April 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to two year good behaviour order with community service condition involving 100 hours of community service.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – early guilty plea – strong subjective circumstances – good prospects of rehabilitation – history of alcohol abuse – history of physical and emotional abuse – offender on conditional liberty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 281 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Haylee Johnson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr T Taylor (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 271 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

The offender is to be sentenced for the offence that, on 1 November 2015, she assaulted Georgia Sirotka-Robertson occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

The maximum penalty for an offence against s 24 is five years’ imprisonment.

On 17 November 2016, the offender was committed to the Supreme Court for trial on charges of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Approximately one month before she was committed for trial, the offender offered to plead guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This offer was rejected.

At the trial, the Crown left open to the jury the statutory alternatives of causing grievous bodily harm and inflicting actual bodily harm. The jury was unable to reach a verdict. The jury’s inability to reach a verdict, including a verdict on the alternative charges, indicates that the Crown case was not strong.

On 21 February 2018, the Crown filed a new indictment and the offender pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment.

The offender should receive credit for the fact that she was prepared to plead guilty to the appropriate charge at a relatively early stage. Such a plea would have had significant utilitarian value. It shows an early willingness to facilitate the course of justice. She is entitled to a significant discount on the penalty that would otherwise be imposed. If I was imposing a sentence of full-time imprisonment, the discount would be 20 per cent. In this case, I will take the plea and the early offer to plead into account in relation to the nature of the sentence that I impose.

Facts

On Saturday, 31 October 2015, the complainant and her friends went to Canberra City.

The complainant and the offender were known to each other. Each had had a prior romantic involvement with the same woman. This situation had caused stress to one or both parties.

In the early hours of 1 November 2015,…

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 128
Case: [2018] ACTSC 128
Decision Date: 18 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Johnson, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Johnson entered a guilty plea at an early stage, and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that took into account the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and the principle of proportionality.

The court identified several significant factors, including Johnson's early guilty plea, the strong subjective circumstances of the assault, Johnson's good prospects of rehabilitation, and his history of alcohol abuse as well as physical and emotional abuse. The court also considered that Johnson was already on conditional liberty at the time of sentencing. In assessing these factors, the court gave weight to the need for deterrence and the protection of the community, while also considering the principles of rehabilitation and the need to provide Johnson with an opportunity to reform.

In light of these considerations, the court determined that a custodial sentence was not appropriate. Instead, the court imposed a two-year good behaviour order, with a condition requiring Johnson to undertake 100 hours of community service. The court considered this sentence to be proportionate to the offence and to provide an appropriate balance between the needs of the community and the potential for Johnson's rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence would provide an opportunity for Johnson to make amends to the victim and to take responsibility for his actions.

The final orders of the court were that Johnson be sentenced to a two-year good behaviour order, with a condition requiring him to undertake 100 hours of community service.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to two year good behaviour order with community service condition involving 100 hours of community service.

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.