R v Millard - [2014] ACTSC 267

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Millard
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 267
Hearing Date(s):	5 September 2014
DecisionDate:	5 September 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	See [30]-[33]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – guilty plea – offences of being unlawfully at large, burglary, theft, attempted burglary – poor criminal history – on parole – mental health and intellectual disability
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 162 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35, 66, 72
Cases Cited:	R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Matthew John Millard (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Jamieson-Williams (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 28 of 2014; SCC 189 of 2014

Murrell CJ:

Background

Today the offender was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the offence that between 23 and 29 April 2014 he was unlawfully at large, contrary to s 162 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum available penalty for that offence is five years' imprisonment. I note the provisions of s 72 of the Crimes Sentencing Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).

The offender adheres to pleas of guilty first entered on 25 June 2014 to three further matters. The pleas related to one offence each of burglary, theft and attempted burglary committed on 2 December 2013. In relation to the burglary and attempted burglary matters, the maximum available penalty is 14 years' imprisonment, and in relation to the theft matter the maximum available penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.

The offences committed on 2 December 2013 were initially the subject of pleas of not guilty and were listed for trial on 30 June 2014. The guilty pleas were entered on 25 June 2014 in the face of an overwhelming prosecution case. The offender is entitled to a discount under s 35 of the Sentencing Act to reflect the significant utilitarian value of the pleas, but the discount must not overlook the fact that the pleas were entered late, albeit not at the last minute, and they were entered in the face of an overwhelming prosecution case. To my mind, the appropriate discount is a little over 10 per cent. But in relation to the offence of unlawfully being at large, he is entitled to what is generally considered to be the full discount of 25 per cent.

Offences of 2 December 2013

The facts of the offences are contained in Exhibit 1. On 2 December 2013 the offender was on parole for similar matters. At about 3 pm on the afternoon of 2 December 2013 he went to a residence at Curtin (the first residence), where he attempted to gain entry by breaking a glass panel on the top half of a timber‑framed sliding door. The timber frame was left with tooling marks and a blood trail that led from the rear of the yard into the adjacent residence.

The offender then entered the adjacent residence…

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 [2014] ACTSC 267
Case: [2014] ACTSC 267
Decision Date: 5 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Millard, the appellant stood before the court, having pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including being unlawfully at large, burglary, theft, and attempted burglary. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction, with the presiding judge tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The appellant, who had a poor criminal history, was on parole at the time of the commission of the offences, further complicating the sentencing considerations.

The court had to address several legal issues, primarily the significance of the appellant's poor criminal history, his status on parole, and the impact of his mental health and intellectual disability on his culpability. The court needed to balance these factors with the seriousness of the offences and the need for public protection. The mitigating factors of the appellant's mental health and intellectual disability were critical in assessing his culpability and the appropriate sentence.

In determining the sentence, the court recognised the appellant's poor criminal history and his status on parole at the time of the offences. The court also considered the appellant's mental health and intellectual disability, which impacted his ability to understand the consequences of his actions and to conform his behaviour to the requirements of the law. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that an appropriate sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the need for rehabilitation. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment followed by a period of parole, taking into account the appellant's mental health and intellectual disability.

The final orders of the court, detailed in paragraphs [30] to [33], outline the specific sentence imposed on the appellant, including the terms of his imprisonment and parole, and any other conditions that apply. These orders reflect the court's comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30]-[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.