Legal Research
Cases
R v Johnson

R v Johnson

Case [2015] NSWSC 31 5 February 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson [2015] NSWSC 31
Hearing dates: 4 February 2015
Date of orders: 05 February 2015
Decision date: 05 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 15 years and 9 months commencing on 12 March 2013 and expiring on 11 December 2028. There will be a balance of term of 5 years and 3 months which will expire on 11 March 2034. Eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – murder – repeated offences of domestic violence – no intention to kill –no premeditation – brutal assault – Form 1 matter – deterrence – moral culpability and early exposure to alcohol drugs and violence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Apps v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 290
Attorney General’s Application No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146
Badans v R [2012] NSWCCA 97
Bellchambers v R [2008] NSWCCA 235
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 205 A Crim R 1
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45;
Markarian v the Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Melbom v R [2013] NSWCCA 210
Montero v R [2013] NSWCCA 214
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Barbetta [2008] NSWSC 688
R v Bolt [2013] NSWSC 895
R v Booth [2014] NSWCCA 156
R v Comert [2004] NSWCCA 125
R v Edwards [2009] NSWSC 164
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; 124 A Crim R 451
R v Hines (No. 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Kennedy [2013] NSWSC 1940
Stewart v R [2012] NSWCCA 183
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 172
Yang v R [2012] NSWCCA 49
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Dale Ryan Johnson (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
DPP (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/75751
Publication restriction: Nil

remarks on sentence

Dale Ryan Johnson is to be sentenced on his plea of guilty to the murder of Cheree Anne Lawson at Coomealla near Dareton on 12 March 2013.
In sentencing him, I will take into account a further offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the same victim. The fact that there is a further domestic violence offence to be taken into account increases the weight to be given to both personal deterrence and retribution: see Attorney General’s Application No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146 at [42]

Plea of guilty

The offender…

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 [2015] NSWSC 31
Case: [2015] NSWSC 31
Decision Date: 05 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson involved the defendant who was convicted of murder, though it was determined that the offence was committed without intent to kill or premeditation. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had a history of repeated offences of domestic violence, and who had been exposed to alcohol, drugs, and violence from an early age. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court included the nature and severity of the offence, the defendant's background and history of domestic violence, and the mitigating factors such as the lack of intent to kill and the defendant's early exposure to substances and violence. The court had to balance these factors against the need for deterrence and the moral culpability of the defendant. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence within the context of a Form 1 matter.

The court found that the offence, while brutal, did not involve premeditation or intent to kill. It acknowledged the defendant's troubled background, including early exposure to alcohol, drugs, and violence. However, it also emphasised the importance of deterrence and the moral culpability of the defendant. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, with a specific focus on rehabilitation and addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the defendant's behaviour.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for a specified number of years, with provisions for parole and conditions aimed at the rehabilitation of the defendant. The court also mandated that the defendant participate in programs designed to address the issues of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as anger management and violence prevention.

Orders