R v Millard - [2019] ACTSC 221

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Millard
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 221
Hearing Date:	16 April 2019
DecisionDate:	24 May 2019
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [36]-[39]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – causing grievous bodily harm – pleas of guilty – substantial criminal history – need for particular emphasis on personal deterrence and protection of the community – long history of polysubstance use
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 25
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Matthew John Millard (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey (Crown) H Jorgensen (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 241 of 2018; SCC 242 of 2018

BURNS J:

Matthew Millard on 18 July 2018 you pleaded guilty to an offence of theft. However, you pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the infliction of grievous bodily harm on a police officer, DE.

On 12 September 2018, you were committed for trial to this Court. On 31 October 2018, the Crown filed an indictment which included a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. You maintained your plea of not guilty to that charge. The matter was listed for callover in February 2019 to set a trial date and it was also listed for case conference. On 7 February 2019 at the case conference, following negotiations, you indicated that you would plead guilty to the statutory alternative charge of causing grievous bodily harm. This was accepted by the Crown.

On 20 February 2019 you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to that statutory alternative charge and also to the charge of theft. The maximum penalty for the offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is 10 years' imprisonment and/or a $150,000 fine. The maximum penalty for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), is five years' imprisonment.

On the morning of 27 June 2018 you stole a mobility scooter from the shopping centre at Cooleman Court, Weston. The owner of the scooter was a disabled woman who had parked it outside a pharmacy and removed the keys from the ignition before meeting with her carer for a coffee. You had driven your own mobility scooter to Cooleman Court that morning and, seeing the other mobility scooter unattended, you used the key from your scooter to drive the stolen mobility scooter back to your house at Rivett. You then returned to Cooleman Court and drove your own scooter back to your house.

Through information provided to police and by reference to closed circuit television footage, you were quickly identified as the thief. The scooter was valued at $2,795 and its owner was unable to travel without it because of her disability. At about 9.40 am on 1 July 2018 three uniformed police officers, including DE, went to your unit in Rivett. One…

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 Millard

Details

AGLC: R v Millard [2019] ACTSC 221
Case: [2019] ACTSC 221
Decision Date: 24 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Millard involved the defendant, Millard, who pleaded guilty to charges of theft and causing grievous bodily harm. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences. The case presented several legal issues, primarily focusing on the sentencing principles that should be applied given the defendant's extensive criminal history and his long-term polysubstance use. The court had to balance the need for personal deterrence and protection of the community with the specific circumstances of the defendant's offending.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for theft and causing grievous bodily harm, considering the aggravating factors such as the defendant's substantial criminal history and his ongoing issues with substance abuse. The court acknowledged that the defendant's history of polysubstance use had significantly contributed to his offending behaviour. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court gave particular emphasis to the need for personal deterrence and the protection of the community, recognising the potential for rehabilitation and the importance of addressing the underlying issues contributing to the defendant's criminal conduct.

After careful consideration of the evidence and the submissions made, the court determined that the defendant's offending warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed, the need for personal deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court took into account the defendant's substantial criminal history and his ongoing issues with polysubstance use, but also considered the possibility of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that aimed to address these factors while ensuring public safety.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs [36] to [39] of the judgment, outlining the specific sentence imposed on the defendant and any other relevant orders. The court's decision emphasised the need for a sentence that would adequately address the defendant's criminal conduct and the factors contributing to it, while also providing for the protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [36]-[39]

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.