R v Johnston - [2015] VSC 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

S CR 2014 0142

THE QUEEN

BRITTNEY JOHNSTON

---

JUDGE:	BEALE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	5 December 2014 and 29 January 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 January 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Johnston
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 16

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Stabbing – Domestic violence – Plea of guilty - Offender was ‘ice’ affected – History of weapons use - Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Mr McMahon Ms Burchill	Gleeson & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Brittney Johnston, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter based on an unlawful and dangerous act, namely the stabbing of James Berias in the chest region with a large kitchen knife on 6 April 2014.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years.

Summary of Offending

You began a relationship with James Berias only a few months before he died at your hand. It was a volatile relationship. Between February and April 2014, there were many arguments between the two of you and on a number of occasions you resorted to physical violence, including the use of a knife.

On 6 March 2014, you punched Mr Berias in the mouth, knocking out a tooth. His close friend Dion Baines took you to hospital because you had cut your hand badly in the process. In mid-March 2014, you were waving a knife around during a dispute and cut Mr Berias on the wrist. On 30 March 2014, when Mr Berias came around to your house and there was an argument over a Commodore station wagon he had recently bought you, you swung a knife at him, cutting his left elbow.

The fact that the two of you were using ice during your brief relationship no doubt contributed to its volatility. And you knew that when you were affected by ice, you were a danger to others. On 5 April 2014, the day before you killed Mr Berias, you had a conversation with his friend Mr Baines at a service station, whilst Mr Berias was washing the station wagon he had bought you. You and Mr Baines were smoking ice together in Mr Berias’ or Mr Baines' truck when you said that you had to get off the ice because ‘I can't handle it and when I'm on this stuff I know I will kill someone.’ You were right.

The next evening, around 10.40 pm, you stabbed Mr Berias with a kitchen knife in the chest in the course of an argument at your home in Yarraville.

As I said, you had been using ice during your relationship with Mr Berias. You had smoked ice with his friend Mr Baines on the evening of 5 April 2014. Around 7 pm the next day, Mr Berias called Mr Baines and told him that the two of you…

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 [2015] VSC 16
Case: [2015] VSC 16
Decision Date: 29 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnston involved the defendant, Johnston, who pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter following a stabbing incident. The stabbing occurred in the context of domestic violence and took place in the jurisdiction of the relevant court. The case concerned the appropriate sentence for Johnston, considering his plea of guilty, his drug-affected state at the time of the offence, his history of weapons use, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the crime of manslaughter, the mitigating factors presented by Johnston's plea of guilty, his drug-affected state, and his history of weapons use, as well as the evaluation of his prospects for rehabilitation. The court needed to weigh these factors against the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

In its decision, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by Johnston's guilty plea, his drug-affected state, and his history of weapons use. However, the court also considered the severity of the crime and the need to ensure public safety and provide a measure of deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence that balanced these considerations was appropriate, taking into account Johnston's reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Johnston be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while also providing an opportunity for Johnston to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The precise details of the sentence were not specified in the text provided.

Orders