R v Miller - [2015] VSC 180

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 0005 of 2015

THE QUEEN

SCOTT ALLEN MILLER

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27, 29 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Miller
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 180

Sentencing – Rape – Murder – Plea of Guilty – Paranoid schizophrenic – No history of offending – Verdins enlivened – Prospects of rehabilitation limited – Extreme violence against unknown member of the public.

Sentence: Total Effective Sentence 33 years – Minimum 28 years.
Declared serious sexual offender under s 11 Sex Offender Registration Act 2004.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Payne, Mr T Marsh Ms S Pratt	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Scott Allen Miller, on 20 January 2015 you pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one count of murder of Yuk Ling Lau, known as Renea. Those offences occurring on 28 June 2014 near the Victoria Police Memorial in St Kilda Road, Melbourne at around 5.30am. Renea Lau was born on 26 November 1981 and was 32 years of age, the youngest of five children born to her parents who all lived in Hong Kong. You were born on 30 December 1971 in California, America, moving to this country when you were two and you were 42 years of age at the time you committed these offences.

The city in which we live, Melbourne, is a safe, in fact, a very safe place to live. The number of murders in this city has dropped year by year, reducing from 135 in the years 2005 – 2006, to 82 in the years 2013 – 2014, whilst our population has continued to increase. Women walk around this city, around our suburbs, they travel to and from work, often alone, shift workers such as Renea are often alone as they travel to their employment. They feel safe, they are comforted knowing and believing that this is safe and civilised society in which they live. Like all parts of the world, there are some areas of our city or suburbs that, male or female, you would probably not think wise to walk through alone late at night. That is just common sense. St Kilda Road, a broad and well lit avenue skirting apartments, theatres, and the botanical gardens would not be one of those. Renea Lau would have felt safe as she headed off to work in the early hours of the morning, having stayed overnight at a girlfriend’s apartment.

Tragically, in this state, just like the rest of the world, women may be harmed and may even be killed, but it is usually by someone known to them; a partner, a relative, but very rarely a complete stranger. Your offending is the opposite of that. Renea Lau had never met you, had never seen you, you had never…

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] VSC 180
Case: [2015] VSC 180
Decision Date: 1 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Miller, the defendant pled guilty to the crime of rape and murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court. The defendant, a paranoid schizophrenic with no prior criminal record, had committed these heinous acts against an unknown member of the public. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles of sentencing, particularly in light of the defendant's mental health condition, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the need for general deterrence. The court had to consider the totality of the defendant’s circumstances, including his mental health, the extreme violence of the crimes, and his lack of a criminal history, against the imperatives of protecting the public and promoting rehabilitation. The court also needed to balance these factors against the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the crimes committed and the necessity to ensure public safety. Given the extreme violence and the unknown threat posed by the defendant, the court found that a significant term of imprisonment was warranted. The court also noted the limited prospects of rehabilitation due to the defendant's mental health condition. Weighing these considerations, the court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of 33 years, with a non-parole period of 28 years, reflecting both the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence. This sentence ensures the safety of the community while also taking into account the defendant's unique circumstances.

Orders