Millard v The Queen

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed on the respondent, Millard, by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Millard had been convicted of burglary, theft, and attempted burglary, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal was brought by Millard against the severity of that sentence.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the respondent's significant subjective circumstances, including his physical and mental health issues, brain injury, history of drug abuse, and likelihood of reform. A further issue concerned the non-parole period, specifically whether it was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had adequately provided reasons for its imposition, considering a technical anomaly relating to pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the respondent's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. However, it also gave considerable weight to his profound health issues, including a brain injury, mental impairment, and physical disabilities, which significantly impacted his capacity for rehabilitation and the application of general deterrence. While the court found that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive, it determined that the non-parole period was. The court noted a technical anomaly in the calculation of the non-parole period due to the respondent serving an existing sentence, which required it to be reset.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in part, with the court ordering that the non-parole period be reset to commence on 6 March 2014 for a duration of 2 years and 6 months, thus ending on 5 September 2016.