R v Johnson - [2022] NZHC 2560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2020-043-1356

[2022] NZHC 2560

THE KING

v

LACHLAN ALEXANDER JOHNSON

Hearing: 26-29 July 2022

Appearances:

J M Marinovich and L A Blencowe for Crown P M Keegan and N Bourke for Defendant

Sentence:

4 October 2022

SENTENCING OF CULL J

[1] Mr Lachlan Johnson, you have been convicted by a jury for the manslaughter of Mitchell Craig Mosen,1 and you have pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm.2 You appear for sentence on these charges today. While I read my sentencing notes you may sit down, and I will ask you to stand again at the end when I formally sentence you. You may be seated.

[2] In sentencing you today, I will first describe your offending. I will then outline the sentencing regime for manslaughter and the approach I will take to your sentence, the starting point I have adopted and why, and the adjustments I have made to this starting point. This does involve, as you have heard Counsel speak to me this morning,

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177; maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2 Arms Act 1983, ss 50A(a) and (b); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

R v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 2560 [4 October 2022]

taking into account the aggravating features of your offending, and circumstances personal to you.

Background

[3]The background to your offending is as follows.

[4] You and Mrs Mosen were neighbours living in a rural area in New Plymouth. Your properties were approximately 200 metres apart. Mr Mosen was living with his mother at that property. He had been diagnosed with brain cancer and was undergoing treatment and surgery. While for a period of time the relationship between you and Mr Mosen had been positive, it deteriorated after Mr Mosen’s diagnosis and subsequent surgery.

[5] On 22 August 2020 at around 6.15 pm, you had parked your car on the side of the road on which you live and were lighting Chinese lanterns to float above the valley below. You have done this before as it was something that the children in the area enjoyed. You had been drinking much of that day and you were drunk. During this time, Mr Mosen decided to go for a ride on his quad bike and came across you. Mr Mosen took exception to what you were doing, as he thought in your description they were “spy cameras,” and he physically attacked you. You describe being beaten up by him. Mr Mosen then left on his quad bike and headed back home.

[6] Following the altercation, you were enraged. You have said you had “never been so mad [in your] life”. Fuelled by alcohol and your rage, you drove back to your home, retrieved your semi-automatic shotgun and ammunition belt, and then drove the short distance to Mr Mosen’s house with the intention of shooting Mr Mosen in the foot.

[7] You…

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 R v Johnson

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson [2022] NZHC 2560
Case: [2022] NZHC 2560
Decision Date: 4 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lachlan Alexander Johnson was convicted for the manslaughter of Mitchell Craig Mosen and pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Johnson's actions. The primary legal issues involved establishing a suitable starting point for the manslaughter charge, assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors, and determining the appropriate sentence for the firearm charge. The court considered the premeditation, serious injury, use of a weapon, and home invasion as aggravating factors. Conversely, the provocative conduct of the victim was recognised as a mitigating factor, albeit partially reducing the defendant's culpability.

The court adopted an eight and a half year starting point for the manslaughter charge, adjusting it by six months for the mitigating factor of provocation. The court also considered personal circumstances, granting a 25% discount for Johnson's early and consistent indication to plead guilty, and a 5% discount for his expressed remorse. These adjustments brought the final sentence for manslaughter to six years' imprisonment. For the unlawful possession of a firearm, the court imposed a six-month sentence to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence. The court also ordered the destruction of Johnson's firearm and the ammunition retained by the police.

Orders