Regina v Raymond JOHNSON - [2002] NSWCCA 492

CITATION: REGINA v Raymond JOHNSON [2002] NSWCCA 492

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60364/01

HEARING DATE(S): 6/12/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 December 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Raymond JOHNSON

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Hulme J at 36; Bell J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0097

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : PG Ingram (Crown)
BT Stratton QC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor
Leon Goldberg (Appellant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367
Regina v Bazley (unreported) NSWCCA 23 March 1989

DECISION: Appeal dismissed; Application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence dismissed

60364/01

IPP JA
HULME J
BELL J
6 December 2002

REGINA v Raymond JOHNSON

Judgment

1 IPP JA: I ask Justice Bell to deliver the first judgment.

2 BELL J: On 4 June 2001 the appellant was arraigned in the District Court at Sydney before his Honour Judge J.X. Gibson QC on an indictment charging him with the following two offences:

(i) that on 25 March 1995 at Alexandria he did steal 96 racquets and one squash racquet, the property of Slazenger Dunlop Pty Ltd; and

3 He pleaded that he was not guilty of each count and stood his trial. The next day the jury returned verdicts convicting him of each count. Judge Gibson heard submissions on sentence and proceeded to sentence the appellant that day.

4 On the first count the appellant was sentenced to a term of two years imprisonment, to commence on 1 February 2001 and expire on 30 January 2003, with a non-parole period of eighteen months to expire on 30 August 2002.

5 In relation to the second count, the appellant was sentenced to a fixed term of twelve months imprisonment commencing on 1 February 2001 and expiring on 30 January 2002.

6 The offence of stealing is provided by s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”) and carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The offence charged in count two was brought pursuant to s 114(1)(b) of the Act and carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

7 By notice dated 8 June 2001 the appellant appealed against his conviction and sought leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him. The sentence imposed in respect of the possession of the housebreaking implements has been served. The non-parole period of the sentence imposed on count one has expired, and the balance of the sentence will be served by 31 January 2003.

8 A single ground of appeal is relied upon in support of the appeal against conviction in each case:

“The verdict is unreasonable and…

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 Raymond JOHNSON

Details

AGLC: Regina v Raymond JOHNSON [2002] NSWCCA 492
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 492
Decision Date: 6 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Raymond Johnson involved an appeal by the appellant, Raymond Johnson, against his conviction and sentence for stealing racquets and possessing housebreaking implements. Johnson was arrested when the police found him in a van containing stolen racquets and housebreaking tools. He was subsequently convicted in the District Court and appealed both his conviction and the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, which comprised Ipp JA, Hulme J, and Bell J. The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to support Johnson's conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown argued that the presence of the stolen goods in the van, along with the housebreaking tools and the appellant's proximity to these items, established his guilt. Johnson's defence centred on the lack of direct evidence linking him to the stolen goods and argued that the evidence did not exclude other reasonable explanations for his presence in the van.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that it was open to the jury to infer that Johnson was in joint possession of the stolen racquets and housebreaking tools. The combination of factors, such as the van's location near the crime scene, the presence of the stolen goods in the van, and the housebreaking tools found inside, supported the jury's verdict. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that Johnson was guilty of both charges. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence was also dismissed. The court upheld the original sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders