R v Johnson (No 7) [2019] NSWSC 148

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson (No 7) [2019] NSWSC 148 Hearing dates: 6; 7; 8; 11; 12; 13; 18 February 2019 Date of orders: 22 February 2019 Decision date: 22 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: Conviction of murder recorded Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction of murder – accused found to have had the necessary mental element of murder – found to have intended to cause really serious injury to deceased – accused did not have the intention to kill deceased – partial self-defence not accepted – deliberate violent use of knife – force required to inflict extent of damage upon deceased found to be significant Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23 Cases Cited: Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; (2012) 86 ALJR 1086 Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3 at 466. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Douglas Johnson (Accused) Representation: Counsel: G.J. Tabuteau (Crown) E. Ozen SC (Defence)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ross Hill & Associates (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/185278

Judgment 1. Douglas Johnson has pleaded "not guilty" to the charge that he murdered David Morrison on 29 June 2017 at Campsie. Without intending or conveying disrespect I will generally refer to Mr Johnson as the accused, and Mr Morrison as the deceased.` 2. As the accused so elected with the consent of the Crown the trial was conducted by me sitting without a jury under s 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 NSW. 3. The Crown alleges that the deceased died as a result of an intentional voluntary act of the accused, stabbing the deceased twice. One of the stab-wounds severed Mr Morrison's femoral artery and he died from the consequences of massive blood loss leading to hypovolemic shock at St George Hospital where he was taken for urgent but regrettably unsuccessful medical treatment. 4. It is the Crown case that the accused initiated the confrontation with the deceased which culminated in the stabbing by approaching him in a shoes and other fashion accessories shop ("the accessories shop") in Beamish St, Campsie. The Crown submits that the conflict occurred because the accused harboured some resentment against the deceased arising out of an unspecified incident which had occurred a day or two earlier at a methadone clinic frequented by the deceased and the accused's partner. The Crown says that the accused fatally stabbed the deceased with the specific intent to kill or cause really serious injury to him. 5. Mr Ozen SC, who appears for the accused, does not dispute as a matter of fact that the accused by his voluntary act stabbed the deceased causing his death. There is no issue therefore about actus reus. Mr Ozen made clear that the real issues for trial are whether when he stabbed the deceased the accused had the actual specific intent of killing or inflicting really serious injury on the deceased; and even so, whether the Crown had excluded self-defence as a reasonable possibility. During his opening Mr Ozen made reference to the partial defence of extreme provocation under s 23 Crimes Act 1900 NSW but this argument was abandoned (properly in my view) in closing address (311.50-312.10T).