Miller v The State of Western Australia

In this case, the appellant, Daniel Sturrock Miller, sought leave to appeal against his sentence, which he claimed was manifestly excessive and in breach of the totality and parity principles. The appellant had been convicted on his pleas of guilty of one count of aggravated home burglary and five counts of wilfully and unlawfully damaging property. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 3 years' immediate imprisonment for the aggravated home burglary and 6 months' immediate imprisonment for each of the other five counts, with some sentences to run concurrently and others cumulatively, resulting in a total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months' immediate imprisonment. The appellant argued that the sentence for the aggravated home burglary was manifestly excessive and that the total effective sentence infringed the first limb of the totality principle and the parity principle. The Court of Appeal found that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The Court found that the sentence for the aggravated home burglary was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and that the total effective sentence was required to properly mark the very serious character of the appellant's overall offending and to give effect to the sentencing considerations of denunciation and deterrence. The Court also found that the sentencing outcome did not infringe the parity principle, as there was no unjustifiable disparity adverse to the appellant compared to his co-offender, who had been sentenced in the Children's Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.