Regina v Johnson - [2007] NSWSC 274

CITATION: Regina v Johnson [2007] NSWSC 274
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 29/01/07, 30/01/07, 31/01/07, 01/01/07, 05/02/07, 06/02/07; 07/02/07, 08/02/07, 09/02/07, 12/02/07, 13/02/07, 14/02/07, 15/02/07, 19/02/07, 20/02/07, 21/02/07, 22/02/07, 23/02/07, 27/02/07, 28/02/07, 01/03/07, 02/03/07, 05/03/07, 06/03/07, 07/03/07, 21/03/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: For the stealing charge, sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment. The sentence will commence today and expire on 28 March 2008. For each of the 3 charges of attempting to use the bank accounts, sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment. Each of those terms of imprisonment is to be served concurrently with the 12 months term for the stealing charge, and with each other. The sentences will commence as at today's date and will expire on 28 March 2008. In relation to each of the 12 charges of dishonestly obtaining monies from the bank accounts, sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment. The sentence is to commence on 29 March 2008 and will expire on 28 March 2009. These sentences are to be served concurrently with one another. In relation to the murder of Ian Hughes, sentenced to life imprisonment. In relation to the murder of Anna Hughes, sentenced to life imprisonment. These 2 sentences are to be served concurrently. Each is backdated to 18 November 2005. The offender is to remain in prison for the term of his natural life.

CATCHWORDS: Double murder - life sentence - worst type category

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act

CASES CITED: Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 451-452
R v Twala (NSWCCA unreported 4 November 1994
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409 at 423 (85)
R v Arthurell (SC of NSW unreported, 3 October 1997 at 11)
Crespin Adanguidi v R [2006] NSWCCA 404; BC 2006 10606
Aslett v R (2006) NSWCCA 360
Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312 at (26)]
Knight [2006] NSWCCA 292 at (23)]

PARTIES: Regina v Peter James Johnson

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1229

COUNSEL: Mr C. Maxwell QC - Crown
Mr J. O'Sullivan - Offender

SOLICITORS: Office of the DPP - Crown
Legal Aid Commission - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

THURSDAY 29 March 2007

2005/1229 REGINA v Peter James JOHNSON

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 7 March 2007 Peter James Johnson (“the offender”) was found guilty by a jury of the murders of Ian Hughes and Anna Hughes. He was also found guilty of a charge of stealing three Bankcards from Mr & Mrs Hughes. Further, he was found guilty of three charges of attempting to dishonestly obtain monies from certain bank accounts of either Mr or Mrs Hughes. Finally, he was found guilty of 12 charges of dishonestly obtaining monies from one or other of those bank accounts. Submissions on sentence were taken on 21 March…

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 Johnson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Johnson [2007] NSWSC 274
Case: [2007] NSWSC 274
Decision Date: 29 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants were charged with two counts of murder, following a drug-related incident in which two men were killed. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years. The defendants appealed against their sentences, arguing that the trial judge had erred in categorising their crimes as the worst type of murder, and that the non-parole period was excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct to categorise the murders as the worst type, and whether the length of the non-parole period was appropriate. The court considered the circumstances of the murders, including the defendants' roles, the nature of the crimes, and the degree of culpability. The court also considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly categorised the murders as the worst type, given the premeditation and violence involved. The court also found that the non-parole period was appropriate, given the gravity of the crimes and the need to deter similar offences. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the sentence was excessive, and upheld the original sentences. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court confirmed the sentences of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years for both defendants. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing for murder, and that the sentences were appropriate in the circumstances. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the sentences were excessive, and upheld the original sentences.

Orders