Regina -v- Johnstone [2000] NSWCCA 129

Regina -v- Johnstone [2000] NSWCCA 129

The sentencing judge erred in relation to the first and second counts by failing to apply the principles in R v Ellis to the applicant's voluntary admissions and cooperation, so those sentences were manifestly too high and warranted quashing. The third sentence was not affected by that error and, considering the seriousness and cumulative effect of the three offences, did not warrant intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Allowed in Part
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentences on the first and second counts quashed and substituted; third sentence left undisturbed.
Legal Topics
['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'voluntary Admissions and Cooperation' 'sentence Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'totality of Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'voluntary Admissions and Cooperation' 'sentence Appeal' 'non Parole Period' 'totality of Sentence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court; Leave Granted and Appeal Allowed in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient credit for the applicant's voluntary admissions in relation to the first two offences." "Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the applicant's confessions and thereby derogated from the significance of the guilty pleas." 'Whether any error warranted quashing the sentences and imposing less severe sentences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred in relation to the first and second counts by failing to apply the principles in R v Ellis to the applicant's voluntary admissions and cooperation, so those sentences were manifestly too high and warranted quashing. The third sentence was not affected by that error and, considering the seriousness and cumulative effect of the three offences, did not warrant intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part; sentences on the first and second counts quashed and substituted; third sentence left undisturbed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The sentence imposed on the first count is quashed.' 'On the first count, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four and a half years, including a non-parole period of three years, both commencing on 24 January 1999.' 'The sentence imposed on the second count is...