R v Millard (No 2)

Case [2019] ACTSC 393

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Millard (No 2)

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 393

Hearing Date:

9 September 2019

DecisionDate:

9 September 2019

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [4]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Re-sentence – breaching of orders

Cases cited:

R v Millard [2016] ACTSC 305

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Matthew John Millard (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

I Thomas (Crown)

R Davies (Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 237 of 2015

BURNS J:

  1. Mr Millard is before me today in respect of breaching the orders made by Elkaim J several years ago in R v Millard [2016] ACTSC 305.

  1. The statement of facts refers to, effectively, two tranches of offences that were dealt with by Elkaim J. The sentences for the first tranche of offences (CC2015/40939; CC2015/40941; CC2015/40942; CC2015/40943; CC2015/40945; CC2015/40946) commenced on 5 September 2016. My calculation is that there is three months left to serve with respect to those sentences, based upon the release date of


    4 September 2017.

  1. The second tranche is Counts 1, 3, and 7 (CC2015/40938; CC2015/40940; CC2015/40944). There is nine months left to serve.

  1. The appropriate order is to revoke the Recognisance Order that was made by


    Elkaim J. I impose sentences of nine months' imprisonment with respect to each of the offences that were before his Honour, to commence on 1 July 2018.

I certify that the preceding four [4] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns.

Associate:

Date:
Details
AGLC
R v Millard (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 393
Case
[2019] ACTSC 393
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from the sentencing of the respondent, Millard, who was found guilty of breaching his parole conditions. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was appropriate, specifically focusing on the re-sentencing and the quantum of the custodial term. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge correctly exercised his discretion in re-sentencing Millard, particularly regarding the period of imprisonment imposed. The Court also needed to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the appeal against the conviction was properly dismissed.

The Court observed that the sentencing judge had considered various factors, including the breach of parole, the circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court found that the sentence was within the range of acceptable outcomes, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The High Court was satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appeal against the conviction had been correctly dismissed. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was affirmed.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion and confirmed that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [4]

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.