R v Millard - [2016] ACTSC 305

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Millard
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 305
Hearing Date:	13 October 2016
DecisionDate:	26 October 2016
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [33]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – particular offences – dishonesty offences – lodging false income tax returns – offences committed in custody – plea of guilty – significant criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 17A, 19, 19AC, 20 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 135.1(3)
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1 Millard v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 14 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Camp, unreported decision of Wall J in the Queensland District Court, 6 June 2013 R v Craig [2016] ACTSC 26 R v Miles [2015] ACTSC 162 R v Potts [2016] ACTSC 190 R v Stitt (1998) 102 A Crim R 428 R v Thorn [2016] ACTSC 217
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Matthew John Millard (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Shepherd (Crown) Mr M Hassall (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 237 of 2015

ELKAIM J:

Introduction

On 31 May 2016 the offender pleaded guilty, in this court, to the following nine offences:

(a)Count 1 – On or about 12 January 2011 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Matthew John Millard lodged an income tax return in the name of Matthew Millard for the 2010 financial year containing false information, with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person, namely the Commonwealth.
(b)Count 2 – On or about 17 February 2011 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Matthew John Millard lodged an income tax return in the name of Matthew Millard for the 2009 financial year containing false information, with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person, namely the Commonwealth.
(c)Count 3 – On or about 29 April 2011 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Matthew John Millard lodged an income tax return in the name of Justin Monfries for the 2010 financial year containing false information, with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person, namely the Commonwealth.
(d)Count 4 – On or about 15 September 2011 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Matthew John Millard lodged an income tax return in the name of Matthew Millard for the 2011 financial year containing false information, with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person, namely the Commonwealth.
(e)Count 5 – On or about 7 November 2011 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Matthew John Millard lodged an income tax return in the name of Brett DeBrueys for the 2010 financial year containing false information, with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to another person, namely the Commonwealth.
(f)Count 6 – On or about 7 November 2011 at Canberra in…

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 [2016] ACTSC 305
Case: [2016] ACTSC 305
Decision Date: 26 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Millard, the defendant, who had a significant criminal history, pleaded guilty to a charge of lodging a false income tax return while he was in custody. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the defendant's substantial criminal history and the nature of the offence committed while in custody.

The court had to balance the defendant's past criminal conduct and the circumstances of the current offence. It considered the seriousness of the dishonesty offence, the defendant's previous convictions, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court noted that the offence of lodging a false income tax return while in custody demonstrated a breach of trust and an ongoing pattern of dishonest behaviour. The defendant's extensive criminal history, which included numerous convictions for theft and dishonesty, was also a critical factor in the sentencing decision.

After carefully weighing these considerations, the court imposed a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the current offence and the defendant's persistent criminal conduct. The specific sentence and any related orders were detailed in paragraph [33] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [33]

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.