R v Johnson - [2012] QCA 141

[2012] QCA 141

COURT OF APPEAL

MARGARET McMURDO P
NORTH J
HENRY J

CA No 316 of 2011
DC No 319 of 2011

THE QUEEN

JOHNSON, Lorna Roseanne Applicant

TOWNSVILLE

DATE 13/05/2012

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Lorna Roseanne Johnson, pleaded guilty on 28 September 2011 to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to her then partner, on 8 July 2009. She was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with parole eligibility on 27 January 2013; that is, after serving one-third of the sentence. Ms Johnson, who is now self-represented, applies for leave to appeal against her sentence, contending it is manifestly excessive.

In her written outline of argument she emphasised that her 12 year relationship with the complainant was a violent one. It began when they were both 17. In her oral submissions she said they met when they were only 14. She submitted that he had stabbed her in 2008 in Manuka in Canberra and on another occasion in Reid in Canberra he choked her. She submitted that he had also sexually abused her in Griffith in Canberra in 2008 and had twice passed on to her sexually transmitted diseases. On the present occasion he tore her clothes from her body. She told her lawyers that the complainant had a history of mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse arising out of his sexual abuse in Germany. She claimed that he sold illegal drugs in the past and he had asked those who owed money to him to beat her. In her oral submissions she stated that he was never charged in respect of any of these matters.

She also emphasised that she had committed no offences between 2000 and 2009, when this offence occurred, and had no convictions since. She stated that she herself was sexually abused as a child. She had worked hard over the years to rehabilitate herself, especially since being charged with these offences. She had attended eight counselling sessions in Townsville when she was on bail.

She submitted that her sentence was excessive when compared to others, but she was unable to provide this Court with any decisions of this or other Courts to support that submission. She stated that she was relying on anecdotal reports from other women in prison. She stated that after this offence occurred she had suffered further punishment by losing all her possessions and that the complainant had left her with significant storage bills.

In her written submissions she expressed her remorse for injuring the complainant. She emphasised that she did not mean to hurt him. She conceded that she should not have grabbed a knife, but emphasised that he was attacking her. She stated that she had learnt from her mistakes and was determined not to participate in abusive relationships in the future. She has positive future plans. She wants to study for a degree in Information Technology and hopes to find a suitable partner and start a family. She has asked this Court for a shorter head…

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 [2012] QCA 141
Case: [2012] QCA 141
Decision Date: 13/05/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lorna Roseanne Johnson pleaded guilty to unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to her partner, resulting in a four-year imprisonment sentence with parole eligibility after one-third of the sentence. Johnson applied for leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court considered the applicant's 12-year violent relationship with the complainant, which began when they were both 17, and her rehabilitation efforts since the offence. The court also considered the complainant's serious and permanent physical and psychological injuries. The court held that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and found no error in the sentencing judge's decision. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court encouraged the applicant to benefit from parole and channel her energies into ensuring her release on parole as soon as possible after her parole eligibility date.

The legal issues in this case included whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge made any errors in considering the applicant's background and rehabilitation efforts. The court considered the principles of sentencing for grievous bodily harm, the need for personal and general deterrence, and the appropriate penalty range for offences involving knives in domestic arguments. The court also considered the applicant's timely guilty plea, her dysfunctional background, and her rehabilitation efforts since the offence. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and found no error in the sentencing judge's decision.

The court's reasoning in this case was based on the principles of sentencing for grievous bodily harm, the need for personal and general deterrence, and the appropriate penalty range for offences involving knives in domestic arguments. The court also considered the applicant's timely guilty plea, her dysfunctional background, and her rehabilitation efforts since the offence. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and found no error in the sentencing judge's decision. The court encouraged the applicant to benefit from parole and channel her energies into ensuring her release on parole as soon as possible after her parole eligibility date. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and support for the applicant to ensure a good future.

Orders