R v Miller

Case [2011] QCA 160

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Miller [2011] QCA 160

PARTIES:

R
v
MILLER, Agnieszka Alojza
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2010
SC No 360 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Chesterman JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, the Chief Justice and Chesterman JA concurring as to the order made, Margaret Wilson AJA dissenting

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter of her elderly mother in failing to provide her with necessary medical attention – where applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of five years – where applicant contends that sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the applicant’s mitigating circumstances, and too much weight to other sentences for manslaughter – where applicant contends she ought to have been sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after nine months – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Channon v R (1978) 20 ALR 1; [1978] FCA 16, cited
R v Cramp (unreported), White J, 30 January 2008, cited
R v George (2004) 149 A Crim R 38; [2004] NSWCCA 247, cited
R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, cited
R v HBA[2010] QCA 306, cited
R v Milini[2001] QCA 424, cited
R v Neumann, ex parte Attorney General (Qld) [2007] 1 Qd R 53; [2005] QCA 362, cited
R v Pesnak & Anor (2000) 112 A Crim R 410; [2000] QCA 245, cited
R v Streatfield (1991) 53 A Crim R 320, cited
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398; [1996] 1 Vic Rp 26, cited
R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102, cited
R v Walker (1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 474, cited
R v Watson; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2009] QCA 279, cited

COUNSEL:

C Cuthbert for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. CHIEF JUSTICE:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Margaret Wilson AJA, and I am indebted to Her Honour for her comprehensive recitation of the relevant facts and circumstances.

  1. I remain of the view which I held during the hearing of the application, that especially because none of the past decisions to which we were referred provides any reasonable basis for comparison with the present case, determining the sentence to be imposed was a particularly difficult instance of evaluative judicial decision-making.  In the absence of any demonstrated error, and there is none here, this…

Continue reading R v Miller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Miller [2011] QCA 160
Case
[2011] QCA 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case appealed against her sentence for manslaughter of her elderly mother due to her failure to provide necessary medical attention. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to five years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, with an operational period of five years. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to her mitigating circumstances and too much weight to other sentences for manslaughter. The applicant contended that she should have been sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after nine months.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate and if the sentencing judge had erred in weighing the mitigating circumstances and other sentences for manslaughter. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors and had given too much weight to other sentences. The applicant submitted that she ought to have received a lesser sentence. The court had to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors and had imposed a sentence that was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offence. The court was satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the sentencing judge had given proper consideration to the mitigating circumstances and other sentences for manslaughter. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and dismissed the appeal. The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.