Millard v The Queen

[2020] ACTCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Millard v The Queen

Citation:

[2020] ACTCA 20

Hearing Date:

4 February 2020

DecisionDate:

23 April 2020

Before:

Elkaim, Loukas-Karlsson and Bromwich JJ

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – SENTENCE – Offender Appeal Against Sentence – Whether primary judge erred in characterising seriousness of the offence – whether sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to sentences imposed in other cases – whether insufficient discount allowed for guilty plea – whether nonparole period manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 25

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33(1), 35

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308

Cases Cited:

Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34

Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym)[2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v OJA [2007] VSCA 129; 172 A Crim R 181
Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; 248 CLR 483
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
McCullough v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 94; 194 A Crim R 439
R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296; 177 A Crim R 94

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
Veenv The Queen(No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

Parties:

Matthew John Millard (Appellant)

The Queen (Crown)

Representation:

Counsel

R Davies (Appellant)

S Jerome (Crown)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 22 of 2019

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACTSC

Before:  Burns J

Date of Decision:          24 May 2019

Case Title:  R v Millard

Citation: [2019] ACTSC 221

Court File Number:      SCC 241 of 2018; SCC 242 of 2018

THE COURT:

Introduction

1. This an appeal by an offender against the severity of sentences imposed upon him by a judge of this Court, for offences of theft and causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) in mid‑2018. The sentence was imposed following guilty pleas prior to the charges being listed for trial, and, in the case of the GBH offence, for a lesser offence than was on the indictment. The overall head sentence imposed was four years and nine months, with a nonparole period of three years and eight months.

1. The theft offence, in contravention of s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), involved the appellant taking a mobility scooter from outside a shopping centre. The appellant had a lengthy history of dishonesty offences, and the case against him was overwhelming. The maximum prison sentence was 10 years’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 5 months.

1. The GBH offence, in contravention of s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), involved the appellant setting his pit bull terrier onto 3 police officers who had come to his residence in the course of investigating the theft of the mobility scooter that had taken place 5…