Legal Research
Cases
Miller v The King

Miller v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 267 25 October 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miller v R [2023] NSWCCA 267
Hearing dates: 3 July 2023
Date of orders: 25 October 2023
Decision date: 25 October 2023
Before: Kirk JA at [1];
Rothman J at [38];
N Adams J at [41]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence — Whether sentencing judge failed to separately assess the objective seriousness of each offence — Whether sentencing judge failed to adequately differentiate the role of the applicant with co-offenders — Consideration of objective seriousness need not be expressed in a particular way — Sentencing exercise is to be judged in light of the sentencing judge’s reasons read as a whole

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 35(1), 97(2)

Cases Cited:
Bektasovski v R (2022) 407 ALR 125; [2022] NSWCCA 246
Courtney v R (2022) 102 MVR 271; [2022] NSWCCA 223
Delaney v R; R v Delaney (2013) 230 A Crim R 581; [2013] NSWCCA 150
Kochai v R [2023] NSWCCA 116
R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102
R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCCA 145
White v R (2016) 261 A Crim R 302; [2016] NSWCCA 190
Yeung v R [2018] NSWCCA 52
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jarryd Miller (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Ramrakha (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/187968
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Miller; R v Panya [2022] NSWDC 314

Date of Decision:

28 July 2022

Before:

Scotting DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/187968

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant, Mr Miller, and three co-offenders were involved in a robbery. In the course of the robbery, one of the applicant’s co-offender, Mr Panya, shot one of the victims with a gun.

The applicant pleaded guilty to three offences, one of assault with intent to rob in company armed with a dangerous weapon and two of robbery in company armed with a dangerous weapon. Three further offences were taken into account on a Form 1. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.

Mr Panya pleaded guilty to the same three charges in addition to a further offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, with the same further three charges taken into account on a Form 1. He was sentenced at the same time and received an aggregate sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months.

The indicative sentences imposed on the applicant for each of the three offences were respectively 6 years, 5 years, and 4 years 9 months. The indicative sentences imposed on Mr Panya for each of the…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Miller v The King [2023] NSWCCA 267
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 267
Decision Date: 25 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Miller v The King involved the applicant, Miller, who sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The primary dispute was whether the judge had correctly assessed the objective seriousness of each offence and adequately differentiated Miller's role from that of his co-offenders. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which is the highest judicial body in the country.

The central legal issues were whether the sentencing judge had failed to separately assess the objective seriousness of each offence and whether the judge had failed to adequately differentiate Miller's role with that of his co-offenders. These issues revolved around the proper application of sentencing principles and the necessity for the sentencing judge to articulate specific considerations in their judgment.

In addressing these issues, the court held that the requirement for the sentencing judge to separately assess the objective seriousness of each offence need not be expressed in a particular way. Instead, the court should judge the sentencing exercise by considering the sentencing judge's reasons as a whole. The court found that the sentencing judge had adequately differentiated Miller's role from that of his co-offenders and had sufficiently considered the objective seriousness of the offences. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, rejecting Miller's appeal on the grounds that the sentencing judge had appropriately assessed the objective seriousness of the offences and differentiated Miller's role with his co-offenders.

Orders