Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Convicted by jury of possession of 454 grams methylamphetamine with intent to sell Offered for sale to an undercover officer for $56,000 Applicant 39 years old Applicant suffered numerous head injuries involving brain damage Consideration of psychological factors arising from this Sentence 7 years imprisonment with parole confirmed
Legislation:
Nil
Case References:
R v Bellisimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Calabria (1982) 31 SASR 423 R v Corrigan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 98700; 7 December 1998 R v Devlin and Marentette 3 Canadian Criminal Cases Second Series 20 R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397 R v Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Symonds v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980616; 28 October 1998 La Rosa v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960628; 13 October 1996 Rawcliff v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960073; 20 February 1996 Vodanovic v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960056; 9 February 1996
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MILLER -v- R [1999] WASCA 66 CORAM : PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J STEYTLER J
HEARD : 23 APRIL 1999 DELIVERED : 23 JUNE 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 197 of 1998 BETWEEN : RAYMOND JOHN MILLER
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Convicted by jury of possession of 454 grams methylamphetamine with intent to sell - Offered for sale to an undercover officer for $56,000 - Applicant 39 years old - Applicant suffered numerous head injuries involving brain damage - Consideration of psychological factors arising from this - Sentence 7 years imprisonment with parole confirmed
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave refused
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr O P Holdenson QC and Mr B R Jackson Respondent : Ms E F Vicker
Solicitors:
Applicant : Messrs Pryles & Defteros Respondent : Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bellisimo v R (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Calabria (1982) 31 SASR 423 R v Corrigan, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 98700; 7 December 1998 R v Devlin and Marentette 3 Canadian Criminal Cases Second Series 20 R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397 R v Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398 R v Wong (1995) 16 WAR 219 Symonds v The Queen, unreported;…
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 Miller v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
Case
[1999] WASCA 66
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Miller v R, the applicant, Miller, was convicted by a jury of possession of 454 grams of methylamphetamine with intent to sell. Miller offered to sell the drugs to an undercover officer for $56,000. At the time of the offence, Miller was 39 years old and had suffered numerous head injuries that resulted in brain damage. The case before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the psychological factors arising from Miller's brain damage. The legal issues included assessing the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, all while considering Miller's personal circumstances and mitigating factors.
The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, noting that the quantity of methylamphetamine involved was significant and indicated an intent to sell. However, the court also considered the personal circumstances of Miller, particularly his brain damage and the psychological impact of his injuries. In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need for deterrence and the protection of the community against the mitigating factors presented by Miller's medical condition. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, with parole confirmed, was appropriate. This sentence aimed to address the seriousness of the crime while also considering Miller's unique circumstances.
The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence and submissions presented. It was determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court found that the mitigating factors, particularly Miller's brain damage, warranted a reduced sentence compared to what might be imposed in similar cases without such mitigating factors. The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal was refused.