SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | MILES v THE QUEEN |
Citation: | [2014] ACTCA 41 |
Hearing Date(s): | 6 May 2014 |
DecisionDate: | 29 August 2014 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Penfold J & Ross J |
Decision: | 1. In relation to ACTCA 18 of 2013 the appeal be dismissed. 2. In relation to ACTCA 77 of 2013 the appeal be upheld and the appellant be resentenced as follows: 2.1 A new sentence of imprisonment for 4 years, to replace the sentence imposed by Burns J, is to run from 5/1/2011 until 4/1/2015. 2.2 A reduction in the concurrency between that sentence and the sentences imposed by Nield AJ from 3 years and 9 months to 3 years, so the sentence imposed by Nield AJ would start on 5/1/2012 and run until 4/2/2023, giving a total effective sentence of 12 years and 1 month. 2.2 For the above sentence a new non parole period of 7 years and 7 months is set, commencing on 5/1/2011 and ending on 4/8/2018 |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appeal against sentence – parity principle – earlier conviction appeal impact on the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending having regard to the changed basis upon which the sentence is to be assessed – whether sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery was manifestly excessive – appeal upheld. APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appeal against sentence – parity principle has not operation when co-offender has been granted immunity from prosecution – lack of remorse – prospects for rehabilitation – consideration of scheduled offences – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 48, 310 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 66, 74 |
Cases Cited: | Attorney General’s Application under s.37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 No 1. of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Barbaro v R (2014) 305 ALR 323 |
Parties: | Christopher Miles (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr Gill (Appellant) Ms Jones (Respondent) |
Continue reading Miles v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Miles v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 41
- Case
- [2014] ACTCA 41
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed for aggravated robbery was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the parity principle and the impact of an earlier conviction appeal on the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending. Additionally, the court considered whether the parity principle had any operation when a co-offender had been granted immunity from prosecution, and whether the appellant's lack of remorse and prospects for rehabilitation were appropriately considered, along with the nature of scheduled offences.
The court upheld the appeal in relation to the aggravated robbery sentence, finding it to be manifestly excessive. The reasoning involved a reassessment of the objective seriousness of the offending, taking into account the changed basis upon which the sentence was to be assessed following the earlier conviction appeal. The court also determined that the parity principle did not apply in the context of a co-offender who had been granted immunity.
Consequently, the appeal in ACTCA 18 of 2013 was dismissed, while the appeal in ACTCA 77 of 2013 was upheld. The appellant was resentenced for aggravated robbery to a term of imprisonment of 4 years, running from 5 January 2011 to 4 January 2015. This resulted in a reduction in the concurrency of sentences, leading to a new total effective sentence of 12 years and 1 month, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 7 months, commencing on 5 January 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In relation to ACTCA 18 of 2013 the appeal be dismissed.
2. In relation to ACTCA 77 of 2013 the appeal be upheld and the appellant be resentenced as follows:
2.1 A new sentence of imprisonment for 4 years, to replace the sentence imposed by Burns J, is to run from 5/1/2011 until 4/1/2015.
2.2 A reduction in the concurrency between that sentence and the sentences imposed by Nield AJ from 3 years and 9 months to 3 years, so the sentence imposed by Nield AJ would start on 5/1/2012 and run until 4/2/2023, giving a total effective sentence of 12 years and 1 month.
2.2 For the above sentence a new non parole period of 7 years and 7 months is set, commencing on 5/1/2011 and ending on 4/8/2018
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.