R v Miller - [2017] ACTSC 150

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Miller
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 150
Hearing Date(s):	3 May 2017, 13 June 2017.
DecisionDate:	26 June 2017
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [89]–[96] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – drive-by shooting – trafficking – supply – giving false or misleading information – destroy potential CCTV evidence against the principal – accessory after the fact – prospects for rehabilitation – small steps taken – first intervention by the criminal process in offender’s life regarding drug trade activities – turning point.
Legislation Cited:	Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) s 145 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 36 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT) s 86 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 338, 603, 717 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) s 164 Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	DPP (Vic) v McMaster [2008] VSCA 102; 19 VR 191 Johnson v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 R v A2 and Others [2016] NSWSC 737 R v Stanford [2016] NSWSC 1174
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Erin Maree Miller (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr A Williamson (Crown) Mr P Bevan (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bevan & Co Lawyers (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 251 of 2016; SCC 252 of 2016; SCC 272 of 2016; SCC 273 of 2016

ROBINSON AJ:

Erin Maree Miller, whom I will refer to as the offender, has pleaded guilty to a number of offences and stands for sentence.

The Crown has grouped those offences into what it maintains are three discrete courses of conduct and has used the nomenclature of ‘series’ for convenience. I will continue that system.

Series 1

Accessory after the fact to what is colloquially called a drive-by shooting, contrary to s 717 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), punishable by five years imprisonment and/or 500 penalty units.

Series 2

A charge of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code, punishable by 10 years imprisonment and/or 1000 penalty units.

Series 3

Participation in the supply of a drug of dependence, namely methamphetamine — contrary to s 164(2)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) (Drugs of Dependence Act), punishable by five years imprisonment and/or 500 penalty units.

Take a prohibited item into a correctional facility — contrary to s 145(1) of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (Corrections Management Act), punishable by one year’s imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units.

Give false or misleading information to a Territory Official — contrary to s 338 of the Criminal Code, punishable by one year’s imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units.

Timing of the pleas

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence referred to as Series 1 in the Supreme Court on 1 March 2017. At the time she entered that plea a trial date had been set for 29 May 2017.

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2017] ACTSC 150
Case: [2017] ACTSC 150
Decision Date: 26 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miller was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Miller, was charged with various offences including being an accessory after the fact to a drive-by shooting, trafficking and supplying drugs, and providing false information to impede the investigation. The crux of the dispute was the appropriate sentence for Miller, who played a peripheral role in the criminal activities but had shown some early signs of rehabilitation and was a first-time offender in relation to drug trade activities.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Miller's role in the events warranted a custodial sentence, and if so, how long such a sentence should be. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, Miller's level of involvement, and his potential for rehabilitation. It was also necessary to determine whether the sentence should reflect the gravity of the underlying offences or the mitigating factors presented by Miller's actions post-offence, including his limited involvement and initial steps towards rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the need to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The court noted that while Miller's actions were serious, they were not those of the principal offender. It was acknowledged that this was Miller's first significant intervention by the criminal justice system in relation to drug trade activities, which could be seen as a turning point for him. The court took into account the small but positive steps Miller had taken towards rehabilitation and his limited involvement in the drive-by shooting. After careful consideration, the court decided on a sentence that reflected both the need for deterrence and the potential for reform.

The final orders of the court, detailed in paragraphs [89] to [96], reflect a sentence that aims to address the seriousness of the crimes while also providing an opportunity for Miller to turn his life around. The court ordered a specific term of imprisonment followed by a period of community correction orders designed to support Miller's rehabilitation efforts.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [89]–[96] below.

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.