R v Johnstone

Case [2016] ACTSC 112


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Johnstone

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 112

Hearing Dates:

4 February 2016, 5 February 2016

DecisionDate:

18 February 2016

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

See [35] – [41].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonesty offences – “ram-raid” style aggravated burglary – damage property – theft – pleas of guilty – offending linked to use of illicit drugs – significant criminal history – parity – prospects of rehabilitation – sentence suspended after 11 months.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 312, 318(2), 403

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Michael John Johnstone (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr S McLaughlin (Crown)

Mr D Rutherford (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Ltd (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 217 of 2015

The offences

  1. Michael Johnstone has pleaded guilty to five offences arising out of a single incident, as follows: 

(a)one aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 20 years;

(b)two damage property offences, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 10 years;

(c)one theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 10 years;

(d)one offence of dishonestly and without consent riding in a motor vehicle, contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty including imprisonment for five years.

The incident

  1. The incident from which these charges arose took place in late March 2015. 

  1. The following description of the incident is drawn from the agreed statement of facts:

Between 8:00pm on 30 March 2015 and 5:00am [the next morning], a silver Subaru Impreza, [belonging to a Mr Louis], was unlawfully taken from Coranderrk Street, Reid. 

At 5:06am on 31 March, [that second day], the offender, Mr Johnstone, rode in the vehicle which was being driven by Dylan Bowler. The vehicle was driven through the doors of the Gungahlin Shopping Centre adjacent to the First Choice Liquor store [in Gungahlin]. 

The vehicle proceeded down an internal corridor before driving through another set of internal doors and into the main area of the shopping centre. 

The offenders then drove towards the Diamond Rings Designs store before reversing the car through the security roller door. Both offenders then entered the jewellery store before using a brick and a work boot to smash open glass cabinets containing jewellery.  They took $29,083.07 worth of jewellery, including rings, necklaces, chains, earrings, pendants and display cases.  They caused approximately $9000 worth of damage. 

Both offenders covered their faces and wore gloves during the aggravated burglary.  Mr Johnstone cut himself during the commission of the aggravated burglary and his blood was recovered from within the jewellery store. 

The offenders then drove through the centre and attempted to leave via the same doors they had smashed to make their…

Continue reading R v Johnstone

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Johnstone [2016] ACTSC 112
Case
[2016] ACTSC 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnstone was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent, Johnstone, was charged with multiple counts of aggravated burglary, property damage, and theft. The charges stemmed from a series of ram-raid style burglaries where the respondent forced entry into multiple businesses using a stolen vehicle. The respondent pleaded guilty to all charges. The case focused on the appropriate sentence for these offences, particularly considering the respondent's significant criminal history, the impact of illicit drug use on his offending, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate level of punishment for the respondent's offences, the need to ensure parity in sentencing, and the consideration of the respondent's personal circumstances, including his history of drug use and potential for rehabilitation. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offences with the respondent's background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in determining the sentence, considered the aggravating factors of the offences, including the extensive damage to property, the commercial impact of the burglaries, and the respondent's extensive criminal history. The court also took into account the respondent's guilty pleas and the influence of drug use on his offending behaviour. Ultimately, the court decided to suspend the sentence after 11 months, recognising the respondent's potential for rehabilitation and his limited history of violent offending.

The court ordered the sentence to be suspended after 11 months, subject to certain conditions. The respondent was also ordered to participate in a rehabilitation program and to refrain from using illicit drugs. These orders were intended to support the respondent's rehabilitation and to deter future offending. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for the respondent to reform and reintegrate into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [35] – [41].

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.