SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
Miles v The Queen
Citation:
[2016] ACTCA 54
Hearing Date:
3 May 2016
DecisionDate:
14 October 2016
Before:
Penfold, Burns and Wigney JJ
Decision:
See [91]-[92]
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court – appeal against sentence – manifestly excessive – application of the principle of totality – application of the parity principle – errors in setting the non-parole period – errors of fact – failure to articulate objective seriousness of the offences – no merit in grounds of appeal – appellant re-sentenced to address sentencing errors by primary judge – appeal otherwise dismissed.
David Thomas, Principles of Sentencing (Heinemann, 2nd ed, 1979)
Parties:
Christopher John Miles (Appellant)
The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel
Self-represented (Appellant)
Mr S Drumgold (Respondent in relation to ACT matters)
Mr T Shepherd (Respondent in relation to Commonwealth matters)
Solicitors
Self-represented (Appellant)
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent in relation to ACT matters)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent in relation to Commonwealth…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Miles v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Miles v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 54
Case
[2016] ACTCA 54
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Miles appealed against the sentence imposed by a single judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal concerned the severity of the sentence and alleged errors in the determination of the non-parole period.
The Court of Appeal was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the principle of totality had been correctly applied, and whether the parity principle had been given due consideration. Further, the court had to determine if there were errors of fact or a failure by the sentencing judge to articulate the objective seriousness of the offences.
The Court of Appeal found that while some grounds of appeal lacked merit, there were indeed errors in the sentencing process, particularly concerning the non-parole period and the articulation of the objective seriousness of the offences. The court applied the principles of totality and parity in re-sentencing the appellant. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.