THREE men from Bournemouth were jailed for a total of 62 years at Winchester Crown Court yesterday following a week of offending which involved killing a man and robbing multiple others.

Hayden Johnson, 29 and of Christchurch Road, Damien Sean Johnson, 31 and also of Christchurch Road, and Dominic MacDonald, 30 and of St John's Road, were sentenced by The Honourable Mr Justice Jeremy Baker on Friday, July 15.

This was after they pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Michael Bastable, who was known as Shaun. They admitted robbing Mr Bastable and a separate robbery on January 19.

The Johnson brothers pleaded guilty to a third robbery, which was committed on January 21.

Below are The Honourable Mr Justice Baker's full sentencing remarks, which have been prvided to the Daily Echo following the hearing. The headings have been added to breakdown the process.

Facts of the case

After the jury had been sworn and the case was opened by the Crown, you all decided to enter acceptable pleas of guilty to the indictment, namely at count 1, manslaughter, and at counts 2, 4 and 5, robbery. The exceptions being you Damien Johnson, as you had already pleaded guilty to count 5, together with a separate offence at count 3 of being in breach of a non-molestation order, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, and you Dominic MacDonald, as the Crown were content to accept your not guilty plea to count 5.

The indictment comprises a series of violent robberies committed in Bournemouth over the course of a week between 14 – 21 January 2022, in the first of which the complainant was attacked with such force that he died.

The first robbery took place on the afternoon of Friday 14 January 2022, the complainant being Michael Bastable, who was 56 years of age and lived on his own. He was a man who had struggled with alcoholism most of his life and had a problem with drugs. He also suffered from dementia and had Alzheimer’s. He was in essence a vulnerable individual.

It is apparent that the complainant was someone with whom you at least Damien Johnson, were familiar, as he lived next door to your former partner and the mother of your two children.

It is not entirely clear how the three of you met up with the deceased that afternoon and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will take it that this was a matter of chance. However, what is apparent from the CCTV imagery, is that as the deceased was making his way on foot to an alleyway parallel to Wessex Way, you three met up and walked together towards the same alleyway.

Although there are no witnesses as to what took place in the alleyway, it is clear that the deceased was attacked and robbed, in the course of which various items were stolen from him including his wallet.

Moreover, the deceased was attacked with such violence that he died, the cause of death being catastrophic loss of blood from three separate tears within his mesentery, which in turn was caused by blunt force injury to his abdomen which the consultant forensic pathologist considered was, “typical of infliction by repeated stamping or jumping on the belly while the deceased man was lying on his back on the ground, crushing the torn ligament against the spinal column deep internally”.

Whether the injuries could also have been caused by very heavy punching appears to be of little moment, as on any view the deceased died as a result of a brutal assault for which you are all equally responsible. As far as you three are concerned, having left the deceased unconscious, if not already dead on the ground, you made off from the alleyway. At some stage it is apparent that you took advantage of the situation and went to the deceased’s home where you stole his bicycle, which you Hayden Johnson subsequently pawned at the local brokers and divided the cash which this generated between the three of you, just as one or more of you used the deceased’s bank card to obtain goods at various local stores.

As a result of your joint actions that afternoon, not only has the deceased lost his life, but the repercussions for his family have been profound. In the victim impact statement provided by his brother, not only is the deceased, who was known to them as Shaun, described as having been, “gentle, kind, caring and sensitive”, but the effect of his death and the manner of his dying is eloquently encapsulated in the following words, that “The ripple of destruction that has torn through our family is immeasurable.” The second offence of robbery took place on the late evening of Wednesday 19 January 2022 at the home of the complainant at Christchurch Road in Bournemouth. He was known to you, Hayden and Damien Johnson, as you had both worked for him previously cleaning motor cars.

At about 9.15pm that evening, the complainant was at his home when he heard a knock on his front door. When he opened it he was confronted by you Hayden and Damien Johnson. As soon as he had opened his door, you Hayden Johnson lunged forward and punched the complainant in the face, causing him to stumble backwards, whereupon you pushed him to the floor and pinned him down. Thereafter it was apparent to the complainant that there was a third individual who was also present, namely you Dominic MacDonald, who assisted in holding the complainant down on the floor, whilst you Damien Johnson kept watch outside the premises.

Thereafter whilst the complainant was being held down by Dominic MacDonald, you Hayden Johnson searched the flat after which you returned and asked “where’s the money” at which point the complainant was struck twice to the back of his head. The demand and violence was repeated, and this time, in addition to striking him on the back of the head, he was also struck to the ribs, following which the complainant told you where to find his wallet. You Hayden Johnson went to find it and the three of you then left the flat, together with £460 in cash.

There is a victim impact statement from the complainant, who not surprisingly has not only been affected by the direct physical effects of the robbery carried out in his own home, but the emotional effects of having in your cases, Hayden and Damien Johnson, been attacked by those to whom he had provided both assistance and friendship.

The third offence of robbery took place on the early evening of Friday 21 January 2022, the complainant being a man who was lured to the area of Hayden Johnson’s home by a series of phone calls between the complainant and Hayden Johnson, using the name “Dylan”, in which you told the complainant that you could supply him with a relatively small quantity of cannabis.

When the complainant arrived in the vicinity of Hayden Johnson’s home at just before 6pm, you Damien Johnson met him and led him to a doorway, after which he was bundled down some steps into the basement. Once in the basement area, he was repeatedly struck on the back of the head with what felt to him like a brick. When he was able to look up the complainant saw that there were a number of individuals present in the basement including both you Hayden and Damien Johnson, and various items were stolen from him including, £50 in cash, his car keys and wrist watch.

Following the initial assault, you then demanded that the complainant inform you as to the location of the motor car in which he had arrived and, upon gaining this information, both you Hayden and Damien Johnson together with one other, left the basement to search for it. However, when you were unable to do find it, you returned to the basement, and thereafter repeatedly attacked the complainant again, this time with a baseball bat until he provided further information about the location of his motor car. Having gained this information, you Hayden and Damien Johnson left the basement area again, leaving the complainant in the charge of one of the others.

On this occasion you managed to find the motor car and were able to steal the complainant’s wallet from inside which contained a number of bank cards. On doing so you phoned the individual who had been left in charge of the complainant and asked the complainant for the PIN numbers relating to the various bank cards. Although the complainant could recall two of these, he couldn’t recall the third, and so he asked his guard if he could use the banking application on his phone to remind him of it. When the guard agreed to let him use his phone, the complainant had the presence of mind to phone the emergency services and he was able to alert them to his predicament. When the guard appreciated what had happened he informed you, before running out of the basement.

Thereafter, the complainant was able to make good his escape from the basement and return to his motor car, whereupon he was assisted in calling the emergency services again. When the police arrived they arranged for him to be taken to hospital in order to obtain medical treatment for his injuries, which included a deep laceration above his right eyebrow.

On the following day you Damien Johnson took the complainant’s watch to the local pawnbrokers and obtained £35 in cash for it.

Once again there is a victim impact statement from the complainant, which sets out the very serious mental and physical effects which the robbery has had on him. Not only has he lost his job and suffers from symptoms associated with PTSD, but he has significant scarring to his face, and his pre-existing hearing problems have been exacerbated.

Towards the end of January 2022, all three of you were arrested in respect of these offences and interviewed. As far as you Hayden Johnson are concerned you made no comment, whilst you Damien Johnson provided a written statement in which you sought to blame your brother for having got you involved in all three robberies, stating it was he rather than you who had attacked the various complainants. You Dominic MacDonald provided a similar written statement, albeit that you admitted having held the complainant down in the second robbery and declined to comment in relation to the third offence of robbery.

Previous offending

Each of you have previous convictions of one description or another. In so far as you Hayden Johnson are concerned, you have previous convictions for threats to kill, possessing offensive weapons and battery. You Damien Johnson have previous convictions for criminal damage, harassment, possession of a knife and attempted robbery for which you received a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment in 2014. Finally you Dominic MacDonald have previous convictions for burglary, possession of a knife and battery.

In this regard it seems to me that to one extent or another, each of you have previous convictions which have some, albeit limited relevance in this case. The only exception to this is you Damien Johnson, in that your previous conviction for street robbery which involved your co-accused using a knife is of some significance.

Sentecing guidelines

As you will no doubt be aware, the Sentencing Council have provided guidelines in respect of each of these types of offence and it is necessary for the court to determine the appropriate starting point in relation to each of you upon each count on the indictment.

In relation to count 1, the relevant guideline is that in respect of unlawful act manslaughter, and in my judgment, given the extent of the violence used to cause the deceased’s death, the culpability of each of you for this offence is within category B. Thus the appropriate starting point is 12 years’ custody with a category range of between 8 – 16 years.

In so far as aggravating factors are concerned, each of you have previous convictions of some relevance, and in your case Damien Johnson it is of particular significance that this is not your first conviction for a violent robbery, and there is evidence that you had been involved in an attack upon the deceased on a previous occasion. Moreover, not only was the complainant particularly vulnerable but his death occurred in the context of an offence of robbery, albeit care will have to be taken not to double count this factor in view of you being separately indicted for the robbery in the course of which this death arose.

In so far as mitigation is concerned, there was a lack of premeditation and I note that in both your cases, Hayden and Damien Johnson, you both had difficult childhoods which has no doubt had a detrimental effect upon the lifestyle you have chosen to lead in your adulthood. Moreover, in both your cases, whilst in custody, you have taken steps to address some of the issues which presently blight your life.

In so far as you are concerned Dominic MacDonald, there was a lack of premeditation and I note that not only was your own childhood not straightforward, but you too are using your time in custody constructively. One can only hope that you take time to reflect on what has happened to your life over the last few years, and decide to repay your parents’ emotional investment in you, by redeploying your undoubted talents, just as you did at an earlier period of your life.

In relation to count 2, the relevant guideline is that in respect of street robbery, and in my judgment, given the extent of the violence used to cause the deceased’s death, the culpability of each of you for this offence is within category B, whilst the extent of harm is clearly within category 1. Thus the appropriate starting point for a category 1A offence is 8 years’ custody, with a category range of between 7 – 12 years.

In so far as aggravating factors are concerned, once again each of you have previous convictions of some relevance, and I am satisfied that you deliberately targeted the complainant due to his vulnerability.

In so far as mitigation is concerned, there was little or no planning, and I again take into account in your cases Hayden and Damien Johnson both the effect of your childhood experiences and your constructive engagement within the prison regime, and in your case Dominic MacDonald the matters I have previously mentioned in relation to you.

In relation to count 3, the relevant guideline is that in respect of breach of a protective order, and in my judgment whilst the deliberate nature of the breach places your culpability, Damien Johnson, into category B, the extent of the harm caused appears to fall somewhere between categories 2 and 3, such that the appropriate starting point is between a high level community order and 12 weeks’ custody.

In relation to count 4, the relevant guideline is that in respect of robbery in a dwelling, and in my judgment the level of violence involved in this offence, being between culpability categories A and C, it should be regarded as being within category B, whilst again the level of harm is between categories 1 and 3, and therefore should be regarded as being within category 2. In these circumstances, as a category 2B offence, the appropriate starting point is one of 5 years’ custody, with a category range of between 4 – 8 years.

In so far as aggravating factors are concerned, each of you have previous convictions of some relevance, and in your cases Hayden and Damien Johnson, it is of relevance that this offence was carried out against an individual who had done nothing but seek to assist you in the past, whilst the personal mitigation available to each of you is of a similar nature to the other counts.

Finally turning to count 5 which involves Hayden and Damien Johnson, the relevant guideline is that in respect of street robbery, and in my judgment given not only the use of the baseball bat but also the extent of the force used in the commission of the offence, the culpability of each of you is within category A, whilst the extent of the harm which was caused to the complainant is within category 1. Therefore as a category 1A offence, the appropriate starting point is 8 years’ custody with a category range of between 7 – 12 years.

In so far as aggravating factors are concerned, again each of you have previous convictions of some relevance, and there was a significant degree of planning involved in this offence, which also involved some element of restraint and detention.

In so far as mitigation is concerned I again take into account in your cases Hayden and Damien Johnson the effect of your early childhood experiences.

Assessment on dangerousness

All of the offences, with the exception of count 3, are specified violent offences under schedule 18 to the Sentencing Act 2020, and indeed are also within schedule 19. Therefore it is necessary for me to consider as to whether there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by each of you of further specified offences. In this regard, I do not consider that I would be assisted by the preparation of a pre-sentence report, as there is sufficient evidence before me arising from the facts of the offences.

In your cases, Hayden and Damien Johnson, not only were you involved in the brutal killing of Michael Bastable, but in the other two robberies, both of which involved wholly unwarranted degrees of violence, count 5 involving a particularly serious level of violence. In these circumstances, and given the extent of violence involved, I am satisfied that in each of your cases, there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by each of you of further specified offences.

Moreover, in my judgment, although the nature and extent of the risk does not need to be met by the imposition of an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment, an ordinary determinate sentence would not provide a sufficient safeguard, and it is necessary to impose an extended sentence of imprisonment in each of your cases.

In your case Dominic MacDonald, I have given very serious consideration as to whether you should also be considered to be a dangerous offender within its statutory meaning, given the fact that you too were responsible for the death of Michael Bastable. However, although you were involved in the second of the three robberies, you were not involved in the third, which comparatively involved a far more serious degree of brutality than that meted out to the second robbery victim. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that at this stage you can necessarily be considered to pose such a risk to members of the public and you will be dealt with accordingly.

Sentences handed down

Although it will be necessary to impose appropriate sentences in respect of each of the offences, as the overall sentence imposed upon you must reflect the whole of the criminality disclosed by this series of offences, it is necessary to have regard to the principle of totality, which I will seek to do by imposing a sentence in relation to count 1 which will reflect your overall criminality, whilst imposing concurrent periods of imprisonment in relation to the other counts on the indictment.

Dealing with you each in turn, I first of all address you Hayden Johnson. In my judgment, as a stand-alone offence, count 1 would attract a notional sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, prior to any reduction to take into account the stage at which you pleaded guilty, whilst count 2 would attract a notional sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, count 4 would attract a notional sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment and count 5 would attract a notional sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Although you pleaded guilty to these offences at a very late stage of the proceedings, it still provides those who have been adversely affected by your offending some degree of closure and has saved a not insignificant amount of court time, such that you will be afforded a reduction of about 10 per cent from the notional terms.

Thereafter, and having proper regard to the principle of totality, the overall sentence which will be imposed upon you, and which will take effect as the sentence on count 1, is an extended sentence of 25 years, comprising a custodial term of 22 years together with an extended period of licence of 3 years. There will be concurrent terms of 9 years’ imprisonment on count 2, 5 ½ years’ imprisonment on count 4, and 9 years’ imprisonment on count 5. The statutory surcharge will also apply.

In so far as you are concerned Damien Johnson, in relation to count 1, you bear equal responsibility with your co-accused, albeit your position is aggravated by your particularly relevant previous conviction for robbery, such that as a stand-alone offence, this would attract a notional sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment, prior to any reduction to take into account the stage at which you pleaded guilty, whilst count 2 would attract a notional sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. In so far as count 3 is concerned, this would attract a notional sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment, whilst count 4 would attract a notional sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment, and count 5 would attract a notional sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

On the same basis as your co-accused you will be afforded a reduction of about 10 percent in relation to counts 1, 2 and 4, whilst you will receive a reduction of about 25 per cent in relation to counts 3 and 5, as you entered your pleas of guilty to those counts at the pre-trial and preparation hearing.

Thereafter, and having proper regard to the principle of totality, the overall sentence which will be imposed upon you, and which will take effect as the sentence on count 1, is an extended sentence of 25 years, comprising a custodial term of 22 years together with an extended period of licence of 3 years. There will be concurrent terms of 9 years’ imprisonment on count 2, 2 months’ imprisonment on count 3, 5 ½ years’ imprisonment on count 4, and 7 ½ years’ imprisonment on count 5. The statutory surcharge will also apply.

Finally turning to you, Dominic MacDonald, once again I see no reason to distinguish your position from that of your co-accused in relation to your culpability on count 1, and that as a stand-alone offence this would attract a notional sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, prior to any reduction to take into account the stage at which you pleaded guilty, whilst count 2 would attract a notional sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and count 4 would attract a notional sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment.

On the same basis as your co-accused, you will be afforded a reduction of 10% in relation to counts 1, 2 and 4.

Thereafter, and having proper regard to the principle of totality, the overall sentence which will be imposed upon you, and which will take effect as the sentence on count 1, is a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment. There will be concurrent terms of 9 years’ imprisonment on count 2, and 5 ½ years’ imprisonment on count 4. The statutory surcharge will also apply.

In so far as you Hayden and Damien Johnson are concerned, you will serve at least two-thirds of the custodial element of your sentence in prison, and thereafter only be released if the Parole Board agrees or you have reached the end of the custodial term, and thereafter you will remain on licence for the duration of the extension period.

In so far as you are concerned Dominic MacDonald, you will serve two thirds of your sentence and then be released on licence for the remainder of the term.