R v Johnson [2024] NSWDC 452

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson [2024] NSWDC 452 Hearing dates: 21 August 2024 Date of orders: 26 August 2024 Decision date: 26 August 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bennet SC ADCJ Decision: (1) The application by the Crown for an order pursuant to s 22B, Bail Act 2013 that the accused be detained is refused. (2) The application for a warrant for the accused's arrest is refused. Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Accused serving a custodial sentence in another state – Jurisdiction of the Local Court – Accused's presence within NSW for entering pleas – warrants – ex officio indictment – interstate prisoner transfer. Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) Prisoner (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 (NSW). Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Malcolm Edward Johnson (Defendant) The Crown (Prosecution) Representation: Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: S Norman R Harrison (Defence) File Number(s): 2023/00229046

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. Malcolm Johnson, the accused, is currently serving sentences of imprisonment in Victoria imposed on 21 February 2024 by the County Court for offences of incest. His non-parole period is not due to expire until November 2029. 2. He is also the subject of prosecution in New South Wales for comparable offences to which he entered pleas of guilty whereupon a magistrate made orders for his committal for sentence to the District Court of New South Wales. 3. The lawfulness of the processes by which these steps were implemented must now be considered in the determination of applications by the Crown now before this court. 4. The Crown with the accused's acquiescence asks the court for orders which if granted will found an application to the Attorney General for the transfer of the accused from Victoria to New South Wales pursuant to the Prisoner (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 (NSW) for continuation of the proceedings here. However, I find that the circumstances in which the pleas of guilty were entered, including the conduct of the proceedings in which orders for committal for sentence were made, were not according to law and there is therefore no basis upon which the orders sought may be made. Consequently, the relief the parties seek must be refused. 5. The applications were first before the District Court in Albury on 21 August 2024 when the parties' provided documents and an outline of the orders sought. The matter could not proceed further on that day and were adjourned to later in the sittings for further argument. Subsequently I reserved judgment until 26 September 2024 for my decision and judgement. On that day I announced my decision and orders with my judgement to be published that day on Caselaw.