R v Miller - [2015] QCA 94

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Miller [2015] QCA 94

PARTIES:

R
v
MILLER, Sean Stephen
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 8 of 2015
DC No 304 of 2013
DC No 19 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Unreported, 31 January 2014

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The application for an extension of time within which to appeal the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty is granted.

2.   The appeal against the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty is allowed.

3.   The sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty is set aside.

4.   A sentence of two years six months imprisonment is imposed for the offence of deprivation of liberty, to be served concurrently with the sentences of imprisonment imposed for the other indictable offences on 31 January 2014.

5.   The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is otherwise refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – where the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to concurrent sentences of five years and six months imprisonment for the offences of burglary with a circumstance of aggravation, and robbery in company with personal violence – where the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to a concurrent sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty – where, allowing for the imposition of cumulative sentences of imprisonment for the breach of bail, the sentencing Judge imposed an effective head sentence of five years and six months imprisonment for the indictable offences – whether the sentencing judge had discretion to impose such sentences – where the applicant submitted such sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was crushing – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – where the applicant was convicted by his own pleas of guilty of three indictable offences – where the three indictable offences were burglary with a circumstances of aggravation, deprivation of liberty and robbery in company with personal violence – where the applicant was also convicted by his own pleas of guilty of a number of summary offences – where the applicant was affected by drugs or alcohol, or a combination of both, when he committed the indictable offences – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of five years and six months imprisonment for the offences of burglary with a circumstance of aggravation, and robbery in company with personal violence – where the applicant was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty – where, allowing for the imposition of cumulative sentences of imprisonment for…

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 [2015] QCA 94
Case: [2015] QCA 94
Decision Date: 29 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miller involved the applicant appealing against the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge for various offences, including burglary with aggravation, robbery in company with personal violence, and deprivation of liberty. The applicant, who had pleaded guilty to all charges, argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive and crushing. The appeal focused on whether the sentencing judge had the discretion to impose such sentences and if the applicant's sentence was indeed manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had the discretion to impose the sentences in question and whether those sentences were manifestly excessive. The applicant contended that the effective head sentence of five years and six months imprisonment for the indictable offences, coupled with the four-year concurrent sentence for deprivation of liberty, was excessively harsh. The court was required to assess the severity of the sentences in light of the applicant's offending history, the nature of the crimes committed, and the impact of drugs or alcohol on the applicant at the time of the offences.

The court found that while the sentencing judge had the discretion to impose the sentences, the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty was manifestly excessive. The court considered the cumulative effect of the sentences, including those for breach of bail, and determined that the original sentence for deprivation of liberty was disproportionately harsh compared to the other sentences. The court set aside the original four-year sentence and imposed a reduced sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentences for the other indictable offences.

The court granted the applicant an extension of time to appeal the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty and allowed the appeal against that sentence. The original sentence was set aside, and a new sentence of two years and six months imprisonment was imposed, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal was otherwise refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty is granted.

2. The appeal against the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty is allowed.

3. The sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty is set aside.

4. A sentence of two years six months imprisonment is imposed for the offence of deprivation of liberty, to be served concurrently with the sentences of imprisonment imposed for the other indictable offences on 31 January 2014.

5. The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is otherwise refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Miller [2015] QCA 94
PARTIES:	R v MILLER, Sean Stephen (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 8 of 2015 DC No 304 of 2013 DC No 19 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Unreported, 31 January 2014
DELIVERED ON:	29 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Boddice J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty is granted. 2. The appeal against the sentence for the offence of deprivation of liberty is allowed. 3. The sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty is set aside. 4. A sentence of two years six months imprisonment is imposed for the offence of deprivation of liberty, to be served concurrently with the sentences of imprisonment imposed for the other indictable offences on 31 January 2014. 5. The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is otherwise refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – where the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to concurrent sentences of five years and six months imprisonment for the offences of burglary with a circumstance of aggravation, and robbery in company with personal violence – where the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to a concurrent sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty – where, allowing for the imposition of cumulative sentences of imprisonment for the breach of bail, the sentencing Judge imposed an effective head sentence of five years and six months imprisonment for the indictable offences – whether the sentencing judge had discretion to impose such sentences – where the applicant submitted such sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was crushing – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – where the applicant was convicted by his own pleas of guilty of three indictable offences – where the three indictable offences were burglary with a circumstances of aggravation, deprivation of liberty and robbery in company with personal violence – where the applicant was also convicted by his own pleas of guilty of a number of summary offences – where the applicant was affected by drugs or alcohol, or a combination of both, when he committed the indictable offences – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of five years and six months imprisonment for the offences of burglary with a circumstance of aggravation, and robbery in company with personal violence – where the applicant was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of deprivation of liberty – where, allowing for the imposition of cumulative sentences of imprisonment for…