R v Johnson (No 4) - [2017] NSWSC 609

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 609
Hearing dates: 9 May 2017
Date of orders: 10 May 2017
Decision date: 17 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
See [8]-[11]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – offence of assault causing death whilst intoxicated and over the age of 18 years – element of accused being “intoxicated” – direction to jury with regard to meaning of “intoxicated” with regard to alcohol
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4, 25A(2), 428A
Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Steven John Johnson
Representation:
Counsel:
L Carr (Crown)
C Taylor (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Rice, More & Gibson (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/146675
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

The issue arose in this homicide trial as to what I should say to the jury about the element of the accused allegedly being intoxicated, as part of an alternative allegation that he committed the offence of assault causing death, whilst intoxicated and over the age of 18 years, to be found in s 25A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the Act). The task was a challenging one, because neither my researches nor those of counsel showed that that particular element of this particular offence (which came into existence on 31 January 2014) has been the subject of judicial consideration before.
Counsel and I had access to the Second Reading speeches with regard to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW), in both the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and the New South Wales Legislative Council. We also referred to the definitions of the word “intoxication”, and related words, to be found in the Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. We also considered a number of authorities with regard to the concept of intoxication in other statutory settings; although the latter were useful, none of them particularly informed my ultimate decision.

Submissions and reflections

Defence counsel submitted that the Second Reading speeches suggest that, when Parliament used the word “intoxicated” in this context, it meant a person who was grossly or very much affected by alcohol, or prohibited drugs, or any other substance (the latter part of the proposition in accordance with the definition of “intoxication” to be found in s 4 of the Act, linking as it does with the definition of the same word to be found in s 428A of the Act).
It is true that Second Reading speeches repeatedly speak of “drug and alcohol fuelled violence”; and also refer to “excessive and binge drinking”. But analysing the text, context and purpose of the offence-creating provision itself, I do not think that the element of the offence is restricted in that way. As a matter of plain English, a person can be described as intoxicated by alcohol without approaching unconsciousness, or being, to use the vernacular, “blind drunk”. I think…

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 (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 609
Case: [2017] NSWSC 609
Decision Date: 17 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this criminal case, the accused, Johnson, was charged with assault causing death whilst intoxicated and over the age of 18 years. The incident in question occurred when Johnson, while under the influence of alcohol, assaulted a victim, resulting in the victim's death. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the primary issue was whether the term "intoxicated" in the context of the statute applied to Johnson's state of being while consuming alcohol. The court had to determine the legal definition of "intoxicated" and whether it was appropriate for the jury to be directed on the matter.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "intoxicated" within the relevant statute. The court examined whether the term should be understood in a subjective or objective sense, and if it required a certain level of impairment to be considered intoxicated. The court also considered whether it was appropriate to direct the jury on the meaning of "intoxicated" and what the proper direction should be. The court was tasked with ensuring that the jury had a clear understanding of the legal standards to apply when determining whether Johnson was intoxicated at the time of the offence.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the term "intoxicated" should be interpreted objectively, meaning that the degree of intoxication is not dependent on the individual's subjective experience but rather on an external assessment of their impairment. The court held that the term required a significant level of impairment to be considered intoxicated. The court further determined that it was appropriate to direct the jury on the meaning of "intoxicated" to ensure they applied the correct legal standards. The court provided a direction that the jury should consider whether Johnson's level of intoxication was such that it would significantly impair his judgement and self-control, thereby constituting intoxication for the purposes of the offence. The court's decision provided clarity on the interpretation of the term "intoxicated" and the appropriate direction to the jury in this context.

The court's final orders included the provision of a direction to the jury on the meaning of "intoxicated" as an objective standard requiring significant impairment of judgement and self-control. The court's interpretation and direction played a crucial role in ensuring that the jury had a proper understanding of the legal standards applicable to the offence of assault causing death whilst intoxicated and over the age of 18 years.

Orders