R v Miles - [2015] ACTSC 162

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v Christopher John Miles
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 162
Hearing Dates:	23-26 March 2010, 19 May 2015
DecisionDate:	1 July 2015
Before	Rares J
Decision:	See [85]-[93]
Category:	Sentence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 Miles v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 41 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59
Parties:	The Queen Christopher Miles (Prisoner)
Representation:	Mr T Shepherd (Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)) Mr M Fernandez (Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)) Mr S Gill (Prisoner)
Solicitors Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) Legal Aid ACT
File Numbers:	SCC 67 of 2015; SCC 395Q of 2011; SCC 395N of 2011; SCC 395O of 2011; SCC 395P of 2011; SCC 395R of 2011

RARES J:

The sentencing task that I have to perform today is particularly difficult. You are already serving relatively long sentences for other serious crimes. I must sentence you for nine serious offences, some of which involve offending of a very grave nature, and take four further offences into account.

Sentencing requires a judge to balance all of the circumstances and to impose a punishment that has three principal aims. First, the sentence must punish the offender for the crime and to deter him or her from engaging in future criminal offending. Secondly, the sentence must deter others from doing what the offender did. Thirdly, the sentence must constitute a punishment that also gives the offender the opportunity to rehabilitate himself or herself.

While I see some hope that you now want to change your ways of a lifetime of serious crime, I cannot ignore the scale of your offending for which the law requires you to be punished. But your sentence must also allow you the opportunity to rehabilitate so that you may change your behaviour and work towards becoming a responsible member of our community when you are eligible for release.

I have also taken into account that you are currently in prison because you have been sentenced on two earlier occasions, and resentenced by the Court of Appeal: Miles v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 41. You have been in custody for the last 4½ years including a period on remand before the first of those sentences took effect. Therefore, you have lost your liberty already, the Court has denounced your behaviour and the existing sentences have had some impact in deterring you from committing further crimes. The effective total head sentence and non-parole period that must be imposed on you today should be the same as what you would have received if you had been sentenced for all the crimes together: Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 at 66-67 per Wilson, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. That is, any additional punishment that you receive today should result in you receiving a…

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 [2015] ACTSC 162
Case: [2015] ACTSC 162
Decision Date: 1 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miles was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from the defendant's conviction for drug trafficking, specifically the transportation of a significant quantity of cocaine. The defendant, Miles, appealed against his conviction on the basis that the evidence obtained during a police search was inadmissible due to a breach of his rights under the Australian Constitution. The crux of the legal battle was whether the police had obtained the evidence in a manner consistent with the protections afforded by the Constitution, particularly the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

The court was tasked with determining the legality of the search and seizure of evidence by the police. The primary issue was whether the police had a lawful basis to conduct the search without a warrant, and if not, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the common law "exclusionary rule." The court had to consider the legal framework governing searches and seizures, including the relevant provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and any applicable common law principles.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the police did not have a lawful basis to conduct the search without a warrant, as they did not meet the statutory exceptions for warrantless searches. Consequently, the court held that the evidence obtained was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, which is designed to deter unlawful police conduct. The court's decision was influenced by the principle that protecting individual rights against unlawful state action is fundamental to the rule of law. Given that the primary evidence against Miles was obtained unlawfully, the court concluded that his conviction could not stand. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, or alternatively, the defendant's release if the prosecution decided not to proceed with a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [85]-[93]

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.