Legal Research
Cases
Miles v The Queen

Miles v The Queen

Case [2001] NTCA 9 6 September 2001

Type to search within this case.

Miles v The Queen [2001] NTCA 9
PARTIES:MILES, BRETT VERNON

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA17 of 2000
DELIVERED:  6 September 2001
HEARING DATES:  3 August 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN, BAILEY & RILEY JJ
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S. Cox
Respondent:  J. Adams
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  ril0118
Number of pages:  22

ril0118
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Miles v The Queen [2001] NTCA 9

No. CA17 of 2000

BETWEEN:
BRETT VERNON MILES

Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN, BAILEY & RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 6 September 2001)
MILDREN J:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgments of Bailey and Riley JJ with which I concur. I agree that the appeal should be allowed and that the appellant should be resentenced in the manner indicated by Riley J.

BAILEY J:

I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Riley J in draft. I agree that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant re-sentenced in the manner suggested by his Honour.
I wish only to add some comments concerning the quantities of heroin supplied by and in possession of the appellant. The amount of heroin supplied was 0.39 grams and the amount found to be in the appellant’s possession was 4.12 grams. The Misuse of DrugsAct defines a trafficable quantity of heroin as not less than 2 grams and not more than 40 grams. It is apparent that if the quantity of a drug possessed or supplied were the sole or dominant factor in assessing the gravity of a drug offence, the appellant’s offences would fall at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. However, the quantity of a drug supplied or possessed, while significant, is not the determinative element in assessing an appropriate sentence.
In Moran and Byrnes (1987) 31 A Crim R 248, Tadgell J (Young CJ and O’Bryan J concurring) observed at 254:
“… the quantity of a drug involved in any given count of drug trafficking is but one of the factors to be considered in assessing the sentence. The system, if any, and its potential, and the colour given by the surrounding circumstances of the trafficking are all to be closely considered in the formulation of an appropriate sentence.”
Similarly, in Laurentiu and Becheru (1992) 63 A Crim R 402, Wood J at 418 noted:
“It is also not entirely appropriate to place too much emphasis on the precise quantity of the drug involved, because in some cases, the present being one, the possession relates to that of an intermediary or principal in the course of an enterprise which is judged particularly criminal, whereas in other cases the possession may be that of the end user.”
See also Postiglione (1991) 24 NSWLR 584

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

Details

AGLC: Miles v The Queen [2001] NTCA 9
Case: [2001] NTCA 9
Decision Date: 6 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Miles v The Queen [2001] NTCA 9 was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory. The appellant, Brett Vernon Miles, was appealing against his sentence for the offences of supplying and possessing heroin. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing. The court found that while the head sentences imposed by the trial judge were at the top end of the range of penalties available, they were not manifestly excessive and did not indicate error. However, the court found an error in the application of the totality principle, leading to a "crushing" sentence. The court directed that the sentences for the possession and supply charges be served concurrently with the reinstated sentence of eighteen months imprisonment for a period of thirteen months, reducing the effective total head sentence to seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and three months.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, the application of the totality principle, and the partial cumulation of the penalties for the possession and supply charges. The court found that while the head sentences were at the top end of the range of penalties available, they were not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in applying the totality principle, leading to a "crushing" sentence. The court directed that the sentences for the possession and supply charges be served concurrently with the reinstated sentence of eighteen months imprisonment for a period of thirteen months. This decision resulted in a reduced effective total head sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and three months.

Orders