R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76

R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76

The sentencing judge erred by treating the offence of resisting arrest as an assault on a police officer, warranting quashing and resentencing for that count. The judge's assessment of the applicant's criminal history as aggravating complied with settled legal principle. The error in sentence commencement date should be corrected as acknowledged. Other grounds, including alleged manifest excessiveness of sentence, were not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Severity of Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence for count 1 quashed and re-sentenced; commencement dates for all sentences adjusted; otherwise appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'severity of Sentence' 'criminal History' 'judicial Error']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'severity of Sentence' 'criminal History' 'judicial Error']

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 Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Severity of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in consideration of the applicant's criminal history as an aggravating feature" 'Whether the sentencing judge wrongly equated resisting arrest with assaulting a police officer' "Whether the judge's scepticism about the applicant's injuries was justified" "Whether sentences' commencement dates were correct" 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by treating the offence of resisting arrest as an assault on a police officer, warranting quashing and resentencing for that count. The judge's assessment of the applicant's criminal history as aggravating complied with settled legal principle. The error in sentence commencement date should be corrected as acknowledged. Other grounds, including alleged manifest excessiveness of sentence, were not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence for count 1 quashed and re-sentenced; commencement dates for all sentences adjusted; otherwise appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against each sentence granted.' 'Appeal against each sentence allowed in the following respects: count 1: sentence quashed and replaced with imprisonment for a fixed term of fifteen months, commencing on 31 July 2002.' 'Counts 2-5: sentences to commence on count 2: 31 July 2002; count 3: 31 July...