R v Jim Mills - [2009] NSWSC 521

CITATION: R v Jim MILLS [2009] NSWSC 521

HEARING DATE(S): 17/04/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months and a balance of term of 2 years 9 months. The sentence is to commence from 17 December 2007 and the non-parole period expires on 16 June 2012 the date upon which the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Manslaughter - Unlawful and dangerous act - Infliction of knife wound to the chest of the deceased.

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina v Jim Mills

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/19617

COUNSEL: P Ingram - Crown
C Smith - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
S O'Connor - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

JUSTICE HOWIE

THURSDAY 11 JUNE 2009

2008/19617 REGINA v Jim MILLS
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender was committed for sentence on a charge of manslaughter arising from the death of the deceased, Peter Hawke, on 17 December 2007. He adhered to his plea of guilty in this Court and is to be sentenced for that offence.

2 The facts are contained in a statement tendered to the Court. No material from the prosecution brief was placed into evidence except for the autopsy report and certificates of analysis of substances taken from the body of the deceased and the accused. At the date of the killing the deceased was aged 44 and the offender aged 40. They were acquainted with one another. The deceased was in a relationship with Melissa Cawood and she knew the offender.

3 On the morning of Sunday 16 December 2007 the deceased went to the unit of a long-term friend, Salvatore Sansone, in Redfern, requesting to stay the night as he wanted company. They drank some wine before the deceased left the unit for a short period. During his absence Ms Cawood arrived and introduced herself to Mr Sansone as the deceased’s girlfriend. She waited in the unit until the deceased’s return at about 2 pm. He brought some wine that the three of them drank together.

4 Later in the afternoon the offender turned up at the unit. At some stage the offender and the deceased became engaged in a heated conversation, apparently arising from an allegation by the deceased that the offender’s son had stolen drugs from the deceased. The two ended up in fisticuffs until Sansone intervened. The deceased had a bloody nose. Sansone told the offender to leave and he apologised. He left the unit, the deceased explained to Sansone that the offender was drunk.

5 The statement of facts continues as follows:

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 R v Jim Mills

Details

AGLC: R v Jim Mills [2009] NSWSC 521
Case: [2009] NSWSC 521
Decision Date: 11 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jim Mills involved the defendant, Jim Mills, who was found guilty of manslaughter by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from an incident where Mills inflicted a fatal knife wound to the chest of the deceased. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Mills, given the nature of his crime and the circumstances surrounding it.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for Mills, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The court needed to consider the severity of the unlawful and dangerous act that led to the death, the circumstances under which the act was committed, and the principles of sentencing relevant to manslaughter cases. The court also had to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors presented in the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered various sentencing principles, including the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offence, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court found that Mills' act, while not premeditated, was indeed unlawful and dangerous, leading to the death of the victim. The court also took into account mitigating factors such as Mills' otherwise good character and his remorse. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the circumstances of the offence, was the most appropriate outcome.

The court ordered that Jim Mills be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the specific details of the sentence to be determined following a further hearing. This order reflects the gravity of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors presented in the case.

Orders