Regina v Jason Lisle Johnson - [1999] NSWCCA 431

CITATION: Regina v Jason Lisle JOHNSON [1999] NSWCCA 431

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60076/99

HEARING DATE(S): 1 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Jason Lisle Johnson

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Grove J at 2; Sully J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/3187
98/21/3239

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ford DCJ

COUNSEL: C. K. Maxwell SC - Crown
P. Byrne SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Naomi Hamilton - Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - break, enter and steal - pleas of guilty to 7 offences - 18 further offences taken into account, 12 of which were further offences of breaking, entering and stealing; 2 were offences of breaking, entering and stealing with intent and 3 were offences not being offences of breaking, entering and stealing - applicant sentenced to penal servitude for effectively 6 years: MT 3 years/AT 3 years - appeal against severity dismissed; Applicant submits that sentencing Judge wrongly failed to take into account the requirements of the Drug Court Act 1998 - held: no such error

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)

DECISION: Leave granted to applicant to appeal against sentences passed upon him in the District Court; Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60076/99
SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
16 December 1999

REGINA v Jason Lisle JOHNSON
JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Sully J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60076/99
SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
16 December 1999

REGINA v Jason Lisle JOHNSON
JUDGMENT

2 GROVE J: I agree with Sully J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60076/99
SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J
16 December 1999

REGINA v Jason Lisle JOHNSON
JUDGMENT

3 SULLY J: Mr. Jason Lisle Johnson, [“the applicant”], applies for leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences imposed on him on 4 February 1999, and by his Honour Judge Ford QC, sitting in the District Court at Campbelltown. The application was heard by the Court in conjunction with the hearing of the Attorney-General’s application which has resulted in the issue this morning of a guideline judgment in respect of offences contravening s.112(1) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 4 On 13 November 1998 the applicant was arraigned before Judge Ford. He entered pleas of guilty to seven counts, each of which charged him with a contravention of s.112(1) of the Crimes Act. He was remanded in custody for sentence. 5 On 4 February 1999 the applicant again appeared before Judge Ford. On this occasion, the applicant asked his Honour to take into account in connection with his sentencing upon the seven pleas of guilty earlier entered, eighteen further offences. Of those further offences, twelve were offences of breaking, entering and stealing; two were offences of breaking, entering and stealing with intent; one was an offence of entering enclosed lands without lawful excuse; one was an offence of having in custody goods reasonably suspected of having…

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 Regina v Jason Lisle Johnson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jason Lisle Johnson [1999] NSWCCA 431
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 431
Decision Date: 16 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Jason Lisle Johnson involved the applicant who had pleaded guilty to seven offences, with 18 further offences being taken into account in sentencing. The offences included various instances of breaking, entering, and stealing, with additional offences involving intent and other non-related offences. The sentencing judge imposed a term of penal servitude, consisting of three years mandatory and three years at the judge's discretion. The applicant subsequently appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the requirements of the Drug Court Act 1998. The appeal was dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in not taking into account the requirements of the Drug Court Act 1998. The court had to determine if the judge's failure to consider the Act constituted a significant error that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The applicant's argument hinged on the contention that the sentencing process did not fully comply with the statutory framework designed to address drug-related offences.

In addressing the appeal, the court examined the sentencing judge's decision and the applicability of the Drug Court Act 1998. The court concluded that the sentencing judge did not err in failing to consider the Act as the offences committed by the applicant did not fall within the scope of the Act. The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the relevant statutory and common law principles in imposing the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court confirmed that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders