Legal Research
Cases
R v Johnson (No 5)

R v Johnson (No 5)

Case [2017] NSWSC 1169 1 September 2017

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Unlawful and Dangerous Act

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 1169
Hearing dates: 30 August 2017
Date of orders: 01 September 2017
Decision date: 01 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
Convicted. Sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years to date from 17 May 2015 and expire on 16 May 2021, comprising a non-parole period of 4 years followed by a balance of the term of sentence of 2 years. The first date upon which the offender will become eligible for possible release to parole is 16 May 2019.

Catchwords: SENTENCE — manslaughter — unlawful and dangerous act — offender found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter after trial by jury — other factors besides assault substantially contributed to death — offer to plead guilty to manslaughter before trial — Aboriginal offender with criminal record for violence — offer to give evidence with regard to offending of another person — sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW); s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW); ss 21A(3)(i), 23
Cases Cited: Bugmy v the Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Manevski [2016] NSWSC 1465
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v XX [2017] NSWCCA 90
RJT v R [2012] NSWCCA 280
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Steven John Johnson
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L. Carr (Crown)
Mr D. Carroll (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Rice, More & Gibson (Offender)

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

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

On 11 April 2017, Steven John Johnson (the offender) was arraigned in the Supreme Court sitting at Tamworth before a jury panel and me. The indictment contained four counts, all alleged to have occurred on 16 May 2015, and the second to fourth counts all expressed to be in the alternative.
The primary count alleged that the offender had murdered Kenneth Matthews (the deceased); the second count explicitly averred the manslaughter of the same person; and the third and fourth counts alleged assault causing the death, in its aggravated and non-aggravated forms, of the same person. The offender pleaded not guilty to all counts, and a trial by jury of six weeks’ duration ensued.
On 17 May 2017, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. No verdicts were taken, of course, on the third and fourth counts.
The proceedings on sentence took place before me on 30 August 2017 in the same courthouse, and it falls upon me to sentence the offender for the offence of manslaughter today.
In light of the explicit finding of the jury that the offender was not…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 1169
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1169
Decision Date: 01 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Johnson, who was charged with the manslaughter of another individual. Johnson was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by a jury. The defendant had previously offered to plead guilty to manslaughter before the trial and had also offered to give evidence concerning the offending of another person. The defendant was an Aboriginal individual with a criminal history involving violence. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's conviction.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the circumstances of the offence and the factors that contributed to the victim's death. The court needed to assess the gravity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the mitigating factors presented, including the offer to plead guilty to manslaughter before the trial and the defendant's willingness to give evidence about the offending of another person. The court also had to consider the substantial contribution of factors other than the assault in causing the victim's death.

The court, after careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments presented, found that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was one of imprisonment. The court took into account the defendant's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter before the trial and the willingness to give evidence about the offending of another person as mitigating factors. However, the court also considered the substantial contribution of other factors in causing the victim's death, the defendant's criminal history involving violence, and the need to deter similar offending in the future. The court ultimately determined that a term of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent against future offending.

The final order of the court was that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the specific details of the sentence not provided in the text. The court's decision balanced the mitigating factors with the need to address the gravity of the offence and the importance of deterrence, ultimately determining that a custodial sentence was the most appropriate course of action in this case.

Orders