R v Miller

Case [2019] ACTCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

The Queen v Miller

Citation:

[2019] ACTCA 25

Hearing Date:

8 August 2019

DecisionDate:

27 September 2019

Before:

Burns, Loukas-Karlsson and Bromwich JJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. See [51].

Catchwords:

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence –sexual intercourse without consent – whether the primary judge erred in failing to assess the objective seriousness of the offence – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate – whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to decline to intervene

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 54(1)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33

Cases Cited:

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58

Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30
Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420
CMB v Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346
Delaney v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 150; 230 A Crim R 581
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Griffith v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Livas v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 54
R v Aroub [2017] ACTSC 187
R v Avery [2018] ACTCA 57
R v Ballantyne (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Murrell CJ, 1 April 2014)
R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304
R v Daley [2010] NSWCCA 223
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489; 136 A Crim R 451
R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20; A Crim R 1
R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594
R v Stevens (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 297
R v Taylor [2015] ACTSC 43
R v Wyper(No 2) [2017] ACTSC 103
R v Wyper [2017] ACTCA 59
Sponberg v R [2017] NSWCCA 120
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256
The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
The Queen v Rappel [2019] ACTCA 11

Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584

Parties:

The Queen (Appellant)

Aaron John Miller (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

M Jones (Appellant)

J Sabharwal (Respondent)

Solicitors

ACT DPP (Appellant)

Sharman & Robertson (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 6 of 2019

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             Supreme Court of the ACT

Before:  Elkaim J

Date of Decision:         8 February 2019

Case Title:  R v Miller

Citation: [2019] ACTSC 18

BURNS AND LOUKAS-KARLSSON JJ

  1. On 21 November 2018 the respondent entered a plea of guilty to one count on an indictment dated 12 September 2018 alleging that between 12 and 15 January 2018 the respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse with CB without her consent, and at the…

Continue reading R v Miller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25
Case
[2019] ACTCA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, R Miller, who had been convicted of sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal concerned whether the primary judge erred in their assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal was also asked to consider whether it should exercise its residual discretion to decline to intervene in the sentence.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold: first, whether the primary judge had adequately assessed the objective seriousness of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent when determining the sentence; and second, whether the sentence imposed was so low as to be manifestly inadequate, thereby justifying appellate intervention. The Court also had to consider the circumstances under which it would exercise its discretion to refuse to uphold a Crown appeal against sentence, even if an error was found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal. While the precise reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the Court found no error in the primary judge's sentencing decision or that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. Consequently, the Court declined to intervene in the sentence imposed on the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. See [51].

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.