SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Miller |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 244 |
Hearing Dates: | 15 May 2018, 1 August 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 31 August 2018 |
Before: | Loukas-Karlsson J |
Decision: | See [69]. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – plea of guilty – intensive corrections order assessment – good prospects of rehabilitation |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310(b) |
Cases Cited: | Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Johnston v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 53 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Jake Miller (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr M Fernandez and Mr D Swan (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 243 of 2017 |
LOUKAS-KARLSSON J
Introduction
On 1 March 2018, Jake Miller (the offender) pleaded guilty to the offence of aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, a fine of $375,000.00, or both.
Agreed Facts
The agreed facts are set out in the Statement of Facts, which forms exhibit C1. The facts in short summary follow.
At about 8:00pm on Sunday 22 January 2017, the victim commenced his shift at the 7-Eleven Service Station on Hardwick Crescent, Holt, in the ACT.
At about 9:15pm that evening, the offender walked into the Service Station, and approached the service counter. He picked up a chocolate bar and placed it on the counter, whilst waiting to be served. He was wearing a black baseball cap, a black t-shirt with “Daiwa” printed on the front, and beige knee-length shorts. He was barefoot and his face and hands were exposed.
The victim approached the offender to serve him. As he did so the offender took a black replica pistol from his pants. As he did so, he pulled the slide of the replica pistol back and released it, giving the appearance of having actioned the replica pistol. The victim heard a metallic sound and observed that the replica pistol looked heavy. The offender held the replica pistol in his right hand and…
Continue reading R v Miller
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Miller [2018] ACTSC 244
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 244
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined Miller's personal circumstances, criminal history, and the specific circumstances of the offence. It assessed whether Miller's prospects of rehabilitation were sufficiently strong to warrant a non-custodial sentence. The court considered evidence and arguments presented regarding Miller's background, any prior criminal conduct, and the potential for an intensive corrections order to facilitate his rehabilitation. The court was required to balance the gravity of the offence with the principles of sentencing that emphasise rehabilitation and deterrence.
After careful consideration, the court determined that Miller's prospects of rehabilitation were indeed good. The court found that an intensive corrections order would be an appropriate sentence, as it would provide Miller with the necessary support and supervision to address the underlying causes of his criminal behaviour and facilitate his reintegration into society. The court also noted the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor. The court imposed an intensive corrections order on Miller, reflecting its belief in his potential for rehabilitation and the appropriateness of this sentence given the circumstances of the case. The final orders included the imposition of the intensive corrections order and other specific conditions as outlined in the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [69].
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.