R v Milich

Case [2007] NSWDC 96


CITATION: R v Milich [2007] NSWDC 96
HEARING DATE(S): 18-20, 23-24 October 2006; 25 January 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

5 April 2007
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Nield DCJ
DECISION: See paragraph 42
CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence after trial - attempt to possess prohibited goods (cocaine) imported into Australia contrary to s.233B(1) Customs Act
LEGISLATION CITED: s233B(1) Customs Act
CASES CITED: R v Wong and Leung [1999] NSWCCA 420
R v Mas Rividavia [2004] NSWCCA 284
R v Paliwala [2005] NSWCCA 221
R v Haidar [2004] NSWCCA 350
PARTIES: Regina
Jennifer Mary Milich
FILE NUMBER(S): 06/71/0019
COUNSEL: Mr L. Brasch (Crown)
Mr C. Smith (Offender)
SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP
Mr C. Halburd (Offender)

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: As to the sentencing of Jennifer Mary Milich.

1 The offender is Jennifer Mary Milich. She was born on 4 February 1962. Accordingly, she was aged forty-three years five months when she committed the subject offence, to which I will refer in due course, and she is aged forty-five years two months now.

2 The offender is the eldest of her parent's five children. Her father died about fifteen years ago when he was aged fifty-eight years, as a result of lung cancer. Her mother, who is aged sixty-four years, is alive. Notwithstanding some difficulty in her relationship with her mother, she and her mother are attempting to mend their relationship and her mother is supportive of her. I do not see any relationship between her background and her commission of the subject offence.

3 The offender’s upbringing was less than perfect. Her upbringing is described in the report (exhibit 9) of Mr Borenstein, psychologist, and need not be recited. I do not see any relationship between her upbringing and her commission of the subject offence.

4 The offender attended Wodonga West Primary School from kindergarten to Year 6, and Wodonga High School from Year 7 to Year 10, leaving high school at the end of 1978. She commenced Year 11 at Wodonga Technical College but she did not complete the year.

5 After ceasing to attend Wodonga Technical College, the offender commenced employment with the Australian Taxation Office and she had that employment until 1997. During 1995 she was seconded to the Commonwealth Employment Service. As a result of this secondment, she suffered a nervous breakdown and was unable to continue her employment. She accepted voluntary redundancy in 1997. She has held some casual employments, some paid, most unpaid, since 1997. She was placed on a disability pension in 2001.

6 The offender met her future husband shortly after she commenced employment with the Australian Taxation Office. She kept company with him for four or five years before they married when she was aged twenty-one years. They are the parents of two children, a daughter aged twenty-one years and a son aged sixteen years. She suffered post- natal depression following the births of her daughter and her son, and took anti depressant medication for twelve months after the birth of her daughter and for one…

Continue reading R v Milich

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Milich [2007] NSWDC 96
Case
[2007] NSWDC 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Milich involved the appellant who was charged with attempting to possess prohibited goods, specifically cocaine, imported into Australia in contravention of section 233B(1) of the Customs Act. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted in the County Court and subsequently sentenced, with an appeal against the severity of the sentence being heard in the Court of Appeal, which was then brought to the High Court.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence, leading to an excessive sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and had given disproportionate weight to the appellant's criminal history. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the offence and the appellant's history of criminal conduct.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly the role of discretion in sentencing and the importance of proportionality. The Court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in his assessment by not sufficiently considering the mitigating factors presented and by placing undue emphasis on the appellant's criminal history. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessive and not commensurate with the nature of the offence or the appellant's circumstances. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal against the sentence, quashed the original sentence, and remitted the matter to the County Court for resentencing.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against sentence was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the County Court for resentencing. This decision underscores the importance of judicial consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors in criminal sentencing and the need for proportionality in the application of penalties.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 42

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.