R v Johnstone

The appellant, Johnstone, was convicted of aggravated burglary and theft, offences committed when he was a minor participant. The case was heard in the court of appeal. Johnstone appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive, and that his mental functioning was impaired at the time of the offending. The court was required to determine whether the total effective sentence, which was 3 ½ years with a non-parole period of 2 ½ years, was appropriate given the circumstances, and whether the principles outlined in Verdins were applicable.

The court examined the principles set out in Verdins and noted that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the totality principle was satisfied, and the sentence was not disproportionate when considering the totality of the offending and the appellant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for theft, handling stolen goods, and assault with intent to rob. The court considered expert evidence regarding Johnstone's mental functioning, but found it did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

In light of the appeal being dismissed, the court confirmed the original sentence, which was 3 ½ years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 ½ years. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the offending and the appellant's criminal history. The court found that the principles in Verdins applied and that the sentence was proportionate to the offending.