Legal Research
Cases
R v Miles

R v Miles

Case [2002] NSWCCA 276 18 July 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276 revised - 24/07/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60102/02

HEARING DATE(S): 16 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Daniel Leslie Miles

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Bergin J at 61; Carruthers AJ at 88

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70087/00

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Justice Hidden

COUNSEL : Crown - C. Maxwell QC / P.G. Ingram
Respondent - P. Bodor QC

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Respondent - Brezniak Neil-Smith & Co

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - offences against the person - murder - sentencing - Crown appeal against manifest inadequacy - respondent pleaded guilty to murder committed after escaping from custody whilst serving a determinate sentence for a prior murder - whether the case was one calling for a life sentence in terms of s6(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - relevance of the comparison of the circumstances of the second murder to those of the first murder discussed - significance of the second murder having been committed whilst the respondent was an escapee discussed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, ss 18, 19A, 310D
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999,
s 57(2), s 61, s61(1)
Criminal Appeal Act s 5D

CASES CITED:
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell [1970] AC 642
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Camilleri (unreported, NSWCCA, 8/11/90)
R v Fernando (1997) 95 A Crim R 533
R v Garforth (unreported, CCA, 23/5/94)
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2
R v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 182
R v Thomson [2000] 49 NSWLR 383
R v Twala (unreported, NSWCCA 4/11/94)
R v Warfield (1994) 34 NSWLR 2000
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465

DECISION: By majority Bergin J, Carruthers AJ (Stein JA dissenting). Sentence by Hidden J quashed. In lieu thereof the respondent sentenced to imprisonment for life to date from 25 April 2005.

60102/02

STEIN JA
BERGIN J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Date

REGINA v Daniel Leslie MILES

Judgment

1 STEIN JA:

Introduction

2 I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgment of Carruthers AJ. Because his Honour sets forth the material facts, I am able to state my conclusions without undue elaboration.

3 I am unable to share his Honour’s opinion that the Crown appeal should be upheld and that a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed on the respondent in lieu of the determinate sentence imposed by Hidden J.

4 The question for the court is whether the level of the respondent’s culpability ‘in the commission of the offence’ is so extreme that the community interest in ‘retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence’ can only be met through the imposition of a life sentence (s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999).

5 From the observations of Wood CJ at CL in R v…

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 Miles

Details

AGLC: R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 276
Decision Date: 18 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Miles, the respondent, an individual previously serving a determinate sentence for a prior murder, pleaded guilty to committing another murder while escaping from custody. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the court of criminal appeal, which was required to determine the appropriate sentence under the statutory framework.

The legal issues centred on whether the case warranted a life sentence, as stipulated by section 6(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court considered whether the circumstances of the second murder warranted a life sentence, comparing them to the prior murder and the fact that the second murder was committed while the respondent was an escapee. The relevance of the comparison between the two murders, particularly in light of the respondent's status as an escapee, was a key point of discussion in determining the appropriate penalty.

The court held that the second murder was indeed one calling for a life sentence. The comparison of the circumstances of the two murders revealed significant aggravating factors, particularly the fact that the second murder was committed while the respondent was an escapee. This status indicated a heightened risk to public safety, which was a critical factor in imposing a life sentence. The court concluded that the initial sentence was manifestly inadequate and substituted a life sentence in its place.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the sentence of the trial judge be set aside, and a life sentence be imposed in its stead. The respondent was to serve a non-parole period of twenty-one years, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed and the need for public protection.

Orders