R v Miles - [2001] NSWCCA 274

CITATION: R v Miles [2001] NSWCCA 274

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60012/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v David John Thomas Miles

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Mathews AJA at 2; Studdert J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0885

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Woods ADCJ

COUNSEL : C. Maxwell QC (Crown)
T. Game SC (Respondent)

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

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Drug Court Act

CASES CITED:
R v Tindall & Gunton (1993) 74 ACrimR 275
Attorney General's Application No. 1; R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Griggs 111 ACrimR 233
R v Wilton (1981) 28 SASR 362
R v Allpass (1994) 72 ACrimR 561
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295

DECISION: Crown appeal dismissed. Remitted to the District Court for hearing on 23 November 2001. Bail conditions to continue in the interim.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60012/01

HODGSON JA
MATHEWS AJA
STUDDERT J

REGINA v DAVID JOHN MILES

JUDGMENT

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Studdert J.

2 MATHEWS AJA: I agree with Studdert J.

3 STUDDERT J: This is an appeal by the Crown pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act against an order made by his Honour Acting Judge Woods in the District Court at Sydney pursuant to s 11(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

4 The respondent to the appeal pleaded guilty at the Downing Centre Local Court to thirty counts of break enter and steal, two counts of break and enter with intent to commit an offence and to one count of attempt to break and enter with intent to commit an offence. In respect of these matters the respondent was committed for sentence to the District Court and in that court on 16 November 2000 he adhered to the pleas previously entered.

5 The matters came before his Honour Acting Judge Woods on 15 December 2000 and, having heard evidence from the respondent and his father, his Honour adjourned the proceedings until 23 November 2001 pursuant to s 11(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The respondent was granted bail on these conditions:

(i) that he attend for sentence on 23 November 2001;

(ii) that in the meantime he reside at 8 Nelson Street, Rozelle, that being the home of his parents;

(iii) that he accept the supervision of the New South Wales Probation and Parole Service and undertake counselling as advised;

6 The Crown gave notice of appeal promptly on 3 January 2001.

7 The offences committed by the respondent and to which the proceedings in the District Court related were committed in the Sydney metropolitan area between 1 June 2000 and 23 August…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Miles and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWCCA 274
Decision Date: 17 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v David John Thomas Miles, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Crown against an order made by Acting Judge Woods in the District Court at Sydney, which had adjourned the sentencing of the respondent. The respondent, Miles, had pleaded guilty to a series of break-enter and steal offences, some of which were committed while he was on bail. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge had erred in adjourning the sentencing proceedings, as they believed a custodial sentence was warranted due to the nature and frequency of the crimes. Miles' defence, however, argued that the adjournment allowed for a realistic opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court considered the submissions from both parties, focusing on the youth of Miles, his efforts to address his drug addiction, and the views of medical professionals who believed that incarceration could be detrimental to his rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentencing judge's decision aligned with the objectives of the Drug Court Act, despite Miles not being eligible for that court. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that it was open to the sentencing judge to conclude that the circumstances justified the adjournment. They decided not to intervene in this case, considering the respondent's compliance with bail conditions, his progress in rehabilitation, and the lack of objection from the Crown at the time of the original proceedings.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for hearing on 23 November 2001, with the condition that Miles strictly comply with the existing bail conditions in the interim.

Orders