R v Bridge Johnson [2023] NSWDC 365

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bridge Johnson [2023] NSWDC 365 Hearing dates: 3 July 2023, 13 July 2023 Date of orders: 11 September 2023 Decision date: 11 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC DCJ Decision: See [41] Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – In Company Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW Criminal (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW Cases Cited: R v Caulfield, Russell & Mansfield [2023] NSWDC 347 Texts Cited: NA Category: Sentence Parties: Rex (The Crown) Dion Bridge Johnson (Offender) Representation: Counsel: Carty for the Offender Morters for the Crown File Number(s): 2021/00338155 Publication restriction: NA

JUDGMENT

Reasons on Sentence 1. These reasons finalise the sentence of Dion Bridge-Johnson (the offender) in respect of one offence of causing grievous bodily harm to Tamarin Colan Southam ("the victim") and being reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to the victim in breach of section 35(1) of the Crimes Act. 2. The reasons finalise the matter partly dealt with by a judgment delivered on 20 July 2023, when three co-offenders were sentenced. Those reasons dealt with all relevant matters save for the subjective case of the offender. The finalisation of his sentence had been adjourned in order for a sentence assessment report to be available. 3. Apart from a brief summary, it is not proposed to set out the facts and the assessment of objective seriousness in these reasons. All relevant matters apart from the consideration of the subjective case are set out in the earlier reasons now published as R v Caulfield, Russell & Mansfield [2023] NSWDC 347. 4. In the earlier judgment the objective seriousness of the conduct of the offender was assessed as being at the top of the low range and less objectively serious than the conduct of any of the co offenders. The reason for that was because the agreed facts in relation to the offender state that his involvement in the assault on the victim ceased after one or two hits (paragraph 31). As Mr Carty for the offender pointed out, that allows for a finding adverse to the offender beyond reasonable doubt that there was only one hit. Without detracting from the full summary of facts set out in the earlier judgment, shortly stated this offender attacked the victim on an evening where he and the co-offenders had earlier harassed the victim (see paragraph 14). That attack occurred upon the victim when he was in retreat, was a case of four against one, and is an example of alcohol fuelled violence and significant anti-social behaviour. 5. One issue that needs to be considered here is that of parity. In respect of the co-offenders Caulfield was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and a balance of term of one year and four months. Russell was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months with a balance of term of 15 months. Mansfield was sentenced for the same offence but with a form 1 matter taken into account to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months with a balance of term of 15 months. 6. There are significant differences in the subjective cases. In the case of Caulfield there were mental health considerations and he had a history of substance abuse and also sexual trauma. He had behavioural issues at an early age and was diagnosed ADHD. He was sexually assaulted on two separate occasions. He had a supportive family. He had a criminal history made up mostly of offences of violence. A finding was made that he had a lesser moral culpability. 7. Russell had a very limited criminal history similar to the offender's in that it was a driving matter of driving while suspended; for the offender it is driving high range PCA. He had a significant history of binge drinking and continued to drink at the date of sentence and did not appear to have taken meaningful steps for any intervention in that regard. There is no background of disadvantage of the type seen in Caulfield. He had a good work history. 8. Mansfield was the oldest of the offenders having just turned 26 at the time of the offence. He grew up in an environment of substance abuse and domestic violence. His history was of being in juvenile detention after he assaulted his mother and he was then the victim of sexual assault. He suffers from PTSD. He had a significant history of drug and alcohol abuse. He had a significant criminal history including offences of assault and a weapons charge. A finding was made of reduced moral culpability and that due to his mental health he was not an ideal vehicle for general deterrence.