R v Johnson (No 7) - [2019] NSWSC 148

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson (No 7) [2019] NSWSC 148
Hearing dates: 6; 7; 8; 11; 12; 13; 18 February 2019
Date of orders: 22 February 2019
Decision date: 22 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Conviction of murder recorded

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction of murder – accused found to have had the necessary mental element of murder – found to have intended to cause really serious injury to deceased – accused did not have the intention to kill deceased – partial self-defence not accepted – deliberate violent use of knife – force required to inflict extent of damage upon deceased found to be significant
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23
Cases Cited: Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; (2012) 86 ALJR 1086
Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3 at 466.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Douglas Johnson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel: G.J. Tabuteau (Crown)
E. Ozen SC (Defence)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/185278

Judgment

Douglas Johnson has pleaded “not guilty” to the charge that he murdered David Morrison on 29 June 2017 at Campsie. Without intending or conveying disrespect I will generally refer to Mr Johnson as the accused, and Mr Morrison as the deceased.`
As the accused so elected with the consent of the Crown the trial was conducted by me sitting without a jury under s 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 NSW.
The Crown alleges that the deceased died as a result of an intentional voluntary act of the accused, stabbing the deceased twice. One of the stab-wounds severed Mr Morrison’s femoral artery and he died from the consequences of massive blood loss leading to hypovolemic shock at St George Hospital where he was taken for urgent but regrettably unsuccessful medical treatment.
It is the Crown case that the accused initiated the confrontation with the deceased which culminated in the stabbing by approaching him in a shoes and other fashion accessories shop (“the accessories shop”) in Beamish St, Campsie. The Crown submits that the conflict occurred because the accused harboured some resentment against the deceased arising out of an unspecified incident which had occurred a day or two earlier at a methadone clinic frequented by the deceased and the accused’s partner. The Crown says that the accused fatally stabbed the deceased with the specific intent to kill or cause really serious injury to him.
Mr Ozen SC, who appears for the accused, does not dispute as a matter of fact that the accused by his voluntary act stabbed the deceased causing his death. There is no issue therefore about actus reus. Mr Ozen made clear that the real issues for trial are whether when he stabbed the deceased the accused had the actual specific intent of killing or inflicting really serious injury on the…

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 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson (No 7) [2019] NSWSC 148
Case: [2019] NSWSC 148
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Johnson (No 7), the defendant was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case arose from the death of the deceased, which occurred during an altercation between the defendant and the deceased. The defendant claimed partial self-defence, arguing that he acted in response to the deceased's aggressive behaviour. However, the prosecution maintained that the defendant had the requisite mental element to commit murder, namely, the intention to cause really serious injury.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had the necessary mens rea for murder. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions were driven by an intent to kill or if they were a result of an excessive response to self-defence. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the partial self-defence plea was valid, given the extent of force used by the defendant.

The court found that the defendant had the intention to cause really serious injury to the deceased, evidenced by his deliberate and violent use of a knife. However, the court also found that the defendant did not have the intention to kill the deceased. The court rejected the defendant's claim of partial self-defence, noting that the force used was excessive in response to the circumstances. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were not justified under the partial self-defence doctrine.

The court ultimately found the defendant guilty of murder, emphasising the significant force required to inflict the extent of damage upon the deceased. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The prosecution's appeal for a higher non-parole period was dismissed, as the court considered the sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

Orders