Mills v R

Mills was convicted of persistent sexual abuse of a child, and he appealed against the sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the crime as being in the high range. The only aggravating circumstances identified by the sentencing judge were the victim's age and the abuse occurring under a position of authority. The appellant argued that absent aggravating factors should mitigate the seriousness of the crime.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, noting that the sentencing judge's starting point was close to the maximum penalty, and the present case was not the worst category of such offences. The court concluded that the finding of high range seriousness was open to the sentencing judge, given that the four particularised offences were representative of multiple sexual assaults. The court found that the absence of other aggravating factors did not mitigate the seriousness of the crime. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence was unreasonable and allowed the appeal, re-sentencing the appellant.