High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ,
GUMMOW, KIRBY, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ
CHAD JOHNSON APPELLANT
AND
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
Johnson v The Queen
[2004] HCA 15
30 March 2004
P44/2003
ORDER
1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the order made by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia on 1 May 2002 dismissing the appeal. 3. Remit the proceeding to the Court of Criminal Appeal for consideration and determination in accordance with the reasons of this Court.
On appeal from Supreme Court of Western Australia
Representation:
D Grace QC with M L Tudori for the appellant (instructed by Michael Tudori & Associates)
D J Bugg QC with D W L Renton for the respondent (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Johnson v The Queen
Criminal law – Sentencing – Federal offences – Appellant convicted of two counts of attempting to obtain possession of prohibited imports to which s 233B, Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applied – Whether sentencing judge applied peculiarly Western Australian sentencing principles – Whether express reference to relevant considerations in s 16A(2), Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) necessary.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Federal offences – Appellant convicted of two counts of attempting to obtain possession of prohibited imports to which s 233B, Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applied – Totality principle where sentencing for commission of several offences – Whether sentencing judge must fix sentence for each offence and aggregate them before determining questions of totality or concurrence – Whether sentencing judge may in some circumstances lower each sentence before aggregation – Instinctive or intuitive synthesis approach to sentencing.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Federal offences – Appellant convicted of two counts of attempting to obtain possession of prohibited imports to which s 233B, Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applied – One transaction rule – Where two offences contain common element – Effect of factual errors made by Court of Criminal Appeal – Whether factual errors made by Court of Criminal Appeal in dismissing appeal necessarily leads to conclusion that sentencing judge erred – Whether sentence properly reflects consideration of whether defendant was truly engaged upon one multi-faceted course of criminal conduct.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate