R v Johnston - [2025] QCA 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Johnston [2025] QCA 112

PARTIES:

R
v
JOHNSTON, Jacob Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 95 of 2024
SC No 205 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 April 2024 (Freeburn J)

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2025

JUDGES:

Bond and Boddice JJA and Sullivan J

ORDER:

Leave to appeal sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of attempting to pervert justice – where it was ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for 10 years for manslaughter and 1 year for attempting to pervert justice – where the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be served cumulatively – where it was ordered that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers’ licence absolutely – where it was declared that the 778 days in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentences – where the conviction for manslaughter was a conviction of a serious violent offence – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, applied
R v Hughes[2025] QCA 72, applied

COUNSEL:

M J McCarthy KC, with E J Sargent, for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O’Gorman for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 24 April 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of attempting to pervert justice. It was ordered that he be imprisoned for 10 years for manslaughter and 1 year for attempting to pervert justice. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be served cumulatively. It was also ordered that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers’ licence absolutely.
It was declared that the 778 days in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentences and further, that the conviction for manslaughter was a conviction of a serious violent offence. A parole eligibility date was fixed at 8 September 2030.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal sentence. Should leave be granted, the sole ground of appeal is that the sentence of imprisonment for 10 years, for manslaughter, was manifestly excessive.
Offences
The offence of manslaughter was committed on 1 December 2021. At the time of its commission, the applicant was 21 years of age, had no criminal or traffic history and was a New Zealand citizen liable to deportation upon conviction.
The deceased, a 49 year old nurse, was driving a vehicle in the opposite direction to the vehicle being driven by the applicant when the applicant deliberately drove his vehicle across the centre line of the highway, into the driver’s side door of the deceased’s car.

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 Johnston

Details

AGLC: R v Johnston [2025] QCA 112
Case: [2025] QCA 112
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Johnston, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of attempting to pervert justice. The sentencing judge ordered the applicant be imprisoned for 10 years for manslaughter and 1 year for attempting to pervert justice, with the sentences to be served cumulatively. Additionally, the applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence absolutely, and the 778 days spent in pre-sentence custody were deemed time already served under the sentences.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentence for manslaughter was manifestly excessive, and therefore should be reduced. The Court had to assess whether the sentencing judge sufficiently considered the relevant principles and circumstances when imposing the sentence.

The Court found that there was no basis to conclude that insufficient weight was given to any of the matters by the sentencing judge. The Court concluded that the consideration of the applicant's circumstances and the circumstances of his offending supported a conclusion that a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The Court found that the sentence for the offence of manslaughter did not evidence any misapplication of principle, and was neither plainly unjust nor unreasonable. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the Court ordered that leave to appeal the sentence be refused.

The final orders of the Court were that leave to appeal the sentence was refused, and the sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and 1 year for attempting to pervert justice, with the sentences to be served cumulatively, was upheld. The Court also upheld the order disqualifying the applicant from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence absolutely, and the order deeming the 778 days in pre-sentence custody as time already served under the sentences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal sentence is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is no basis to conclude insufficient weight was given to any of those matters by the sentencing judge when exercising the sentencing discretion. To the contrary, a consideration of the applicant’s circumstances and of the circumstances of his offending, support a conclusion that a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion.Conclusion The sentence for the offence of manslaughter does not evidence any misapplication of principle. It is neither plainly unjust, nor unreasonable. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.Orders The Court orders:1.Leave to appeal sentence be refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Johnston [2025] QCA 112
PARTIES:	R v JOHNSTON, Jacob Paul (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 95 of 2024 SC No 205 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 24 April 2024 (Freeburn J)
DELIVERED ON:	24 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2025
JUDGES:	Bond and Boddice JJA and Sullivan J
ORDER:	Leave to appeal sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of attempting to pervert justice – where it was ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for 10 years for manslaughter and 1 year for attempting to pervert justice – where the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be served cumulatively – where it was ordered that the applicant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers’ licence absolutely – where it was declared that the 778 days in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentences – where the conviction for manslaughter was a conviction of a serious violent offence – whether the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, applied R v Hughes[2025] QCA 72, applied
COUNSEL:	M J McCarthy KC, with E J Sargent, for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robertson O’Gorman for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent