R v McMillan

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
JERRARD JA
FRYBERG J

CA No 278 of 2004

THE QUEEN

JESSE JOHN McMILLAN Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/11/2004

ORDER

MR J R HUNTER (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland) for the applicant

MR M J COPLEY (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) In the Right of Queensland

MR P G HUYGENS (instructed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) In the Right of the Commonwealth

McPHERSON JA: Gentlemen, what we propose to do is to order that the effective sentence of five years imposed on the State offences be suspended after the applicant has served two and a-half years of that effective sentence including, of course, periods of presentence custody and that the sentences imposed on the Commonwealth offences begin on the date of that suspension of the State sentence to which I have referred.

Will you - and I am referring primarily to you, Mr Hunter, and you, Mr Huygens - please draft an order with all the necessary flourishes to give effect to the order we propose to make in accordance with the indictment and the legislation? Is that sufficiently clear?

MR HUNTER: Yes.

McPHERSON JA: All right. Thank you, gentlemen, for your assistance.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an application from Jesse John McMillan against the sentences imposed on him for various criminal offences in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant was convicted on multiple counts, including charges under both state and federal legislation. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was the propriety of the sentence handed down by the Supreme Court and whether the sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences should run concurrently or consecutively. The applicant contested the length and manner in which the sentences were ordered, arguing for a more lenient arrangement.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentences were unduly severe and whether there were grounds to suspend part of the sentence for the state offences, allowing the Commonwealth sentences to commence thereafter. The judges assessed the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the cumulative impact of the sentences on the applicant. They also examined the statutory provisions governing the imposition of sentences for concurrent and consecutive offences under both state and federal law.

The Court of Appeal found that the effective sentence imposed on the state offences could be suspended after the applicant had served two and a half years, including any periods of presentence custody. The sentences for the Commonwealth offences would then commence from the date of that suspension. This arrangement aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation, while also adhering to the legal framework governing sentence imposition. The Court directed the parties to draft the appropriate orders to reflect this decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established