The Queen v Robert Charles Johnston - [2006] ACTSC 71

THE QUEEN v ROBERT CHARLES JOHNSTON [2006] ACTSC 71 (21 July 2006)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – charge of causing damage to a building by fire and intending to cause damage to that building – evidence of possible suicide attempt – whether accused intended to cause damage – whether defence of consent can apply to arson of own property – whether accused in a state of dissociation amounting to mental impairment

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 28, s 58(3) s 404, s 409
Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT), s 68B, 68C

R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 48
R v Tran [2003] ACTSC 53

No SCC 95 of 2005

Judge: Marshall J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 21 July 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. SCC 95 of 2005
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT CHARLES JOHNSTON

ORDER

Judge:  Marshall J
Date:  21 July 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS:

on the charge that on 19 February 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Robert Charles Johnston caused damage to a building, namely a residential dwelling located at 7 Companion Crescent, Flynn, by fire and intended to cause damage to that building, the accused is guilty.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No SCC 95 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT CHARLES JOHNSTON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge:  Marshall J
Date:  21 July 2006
Place:  Canberra

On 19 February 2005, at about midday, the house at 7 Companion Crescent, Flynn, caught fire. The fire caused damage to the house. The owner of the property is Mr Robert Johnston, the accused. He is charged under s 404 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with causing damage to a building by fire and intending to cause damage to that building.

On 26 June 2006, the accused pleaded not guilty to that charge. Previously, on 22 March 2006 he had elected to be tried by judge alone, as permitted by s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). Section 68C of that Act provides the procedures to be followed in a trial by a judge alone. The judge is able to make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of an accused person and any such finding has the same effect as a verdict of a jury. Additionally, the judgment in a judge alone trial must include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied. A brief statement of the relevant legal principles applied and the factual findings made will not suffice; see R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 48 per Weinberg J at [2] to [6].

In accordance with Collins and the judgment of Gray J in R v Tran [2003] ACTSC 53 at [4], as would a jury, I am directed to focus wholeheartedly on the following matters:

· the accused is entitled to a fair trial according to…

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 The Queen v Robert Charles Johnston

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Robert Charles Johnston [2006] ACTSC 71
Case: [2006] ACTSC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Robert Charles Johnston, decided on 21 July 2006 by Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, revolves around the charge of causing damage to a building by fire and intending to cause such damage. The accused, Robert Johnston, was alleged to have set fire to his own residential property on 19 February 2005. The court had to decide on two key issues: whether the accused intended to cause damage to the building and whether a defence of consent could apply under the circumstances.

The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven that the accused intentionally set fire to his house and intended to cause damage. The evidence, though circumstantial, was compelling enough to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of petrol as an accelerant, the observations of neighbours and passers-by, and the chemical analysis of the accused’s clothing were all key factors in the court’s reasoning. The court found that the accused's state of mind, even if he intended to commit suicide, did not negate the intention to cause damage. The court rejected the defence of consent under s 409 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing that the law does not permit individuals to consent to damaging their own property by fire due to the broader public interest implications. Furthermore, the court ruled out the possibility of the accused being not criminally responsible due to mental impairment as there was no substantial evidence to support such a claim.

The final outcome was that the accused, Robert Johnston, was found guilty of the charge of causing damage to a building by fire and intending to cause such damage. The court directed that he be convicted as charged.

Orders