R v Miles - [2016] ACTSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Miles
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 83
Hearing Date:	6 April 2016
DecisionDate:	11 April 2016
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Jordan Miles is convicted of arson on 27 October 2015 (CC 15/10249). 2. Jordan Miles is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence on 27 October 2015. 3. Jordan Miles is convicted of damaging property, namely, the front window of the Kambah premises on 27 October 2015 (CC 15/10250). 4. Jordan Miles is sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 26 February 2017 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for arson in Order 2. 5. Jordan Miles is convicted of damaging property, namely, the rear window of the Kambah premises on 27 October 2015 (CC 15/10251). 6. Jordan Miles is sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 26 February 2015 to be concurrent with the sentence for damaging the front window of the premises in Order 4. 7. That is a total sentence of 19 months. 8. A non parole period of 10 months is set, to commence on 27 October 2015 and end on 26 August 2016. 9. It is recommended that, in granting Jordan Miles parole, the Sentence Administration Board address, in particular, the need for treatment and counselling for drug and alcohol abuse and anger management.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – damaging property– arson – principles applied in sentencing for arson – siege – police negotiations – extent of damage – anger management difficulties – possible rehabilitation and counselling

Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act (2005) (ACT), ss 7, 33 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 403, 404(1)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Derby (2007) 171 A Crim R 302 Halden (1983) 9 A Crim R 30 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Porter v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 145 R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21 R v Haigh (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Nield AJ, SCC 14 of 2013, 9 August 2013) R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Relph [2002] ACTCA 6 R v Sutherland (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Penfold J, SCC 198 of 2008, 22 March 2013) R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jordan David Miles (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Jamieson-Williams (Crown) Mr P Smith (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid (ACT) (Defendant)
File Number:	SCC 249 of 2015

REFSHAUGE J:

Jordan David Miles, the accused, has pleaded guilty to one charge of arson and two charges of damaging property. The offences, however, arose out of a quite dramatic and serious incident. Some aspects of the incident, however, are not the subject of charges, and it is important that the sentence that I must impose reflects the actual offences to which Mr Miles has pleaded guilty, including any aggravating and mitigating factors, but not other offences that might have been…

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 [2016] ACTSC 83
Case: [2016] ACTSC 83
Decision Date: 11 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miles involves the conviction and sentencing of Jordan Miles for arson and property damage. The incident occurred on 27 October 2015, leading to three separate charges against Miles. The case was heard in the court which dealt with the criminal aspects of the matter. Miles was charged with arson, damaging the front window of the Kambah premises, and damaging the rear window of the same premises. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentencing for each charge, taking into account the severity of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding them.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the principles of sentencing for arson and property damage, the context of the crimes, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court had to consider the extent of the damage caused by the arson and the property damage, as well as the circumstances leading up to the incident, including the siege and police negotiations. Additionally, the court considered Miles's personal circumstances, particularly his anger management difficulties and the possibility of rehabilitation through treatment and counselling.

In determining the sentence, the court applied the principles for sentencing in cases of arson and property damage. It acknowledged the severity of the arson, which led to significant damage, and the accompanying property damage. The court also took into account the context of the incident, including the siege and the negotiations with the police. Given Miles's anger management issues and the potential for rehabilitation through treatment and counselling, the court recommended that the Sentence Administration Board consider these factors when deciding on parole. The court imposed a total sentence of 19 months, with a non-parole period of 10 months, and recommended that the Sentence Administration Board focus on treatment and counselling as part of the parole conditions.

In summary, the court found Miles guilty of the charges and sentenced him to 19 months in total, with a non-parole period of 10 months. The sentences for the property damage were to be served concurrently with part of the sentence for arson, and the court recommended specific considerations for parole that would address Miles's rehabilitation needs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Jordan Miles is convicted of arson on 27 October 2015 (CC 15/10249).

2. Jordan Miles is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to commence on 27 October 2015.

3. Jordan Miles is convicted of damaging property, namely, the front window of the Kambah premises on 27 October 2015 (CC 15/10250).

4. Jordan Miles is sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 26 February 2017 to be cumulative as to one month on the sentence for arson in Order 2.

5. Jordan Miles is convicted of damaging property, namely, the rear window of the Kambah premises on 27 October 2015 (CC 15/10251).

6. Jordan Miles is sentenced to three months imprisonment to commence on 26 February 2015 to be concurrent with the sentence for damaging the front window of the premises in Order 4.

7. That is a total sentence of 19 months.

8. A non parole period of 10 months is set, to commence on 27 October 2015 and end on 26 August 2016.

9. It is recommended that, in granting Jordan Miles parole, the Sentence Administration Board address, in particular, the need for treatment and counselling for drug and alcohol abuse and anger management.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.