R v Miller - [2002] VSC 456

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1492 of 2002

THE QUEEN

LOUISE TERESA MILLER

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 September 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Louise Teresa Miller
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 456

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Plea of guilty – Accessory to murder – Young offender – Agreement to give evidence for the Crown - Released on undertaking to be of good behaviour for three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.A. McArdle Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Timms	Cahills, Bendigo

HIS HONOUR:

Louise Teresa Miller, you have pleaded guilty to one count of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

This offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment. It is serious. However, the circumstances in which you committed this offence, on this occasion, fall very much at the less serious end of the range of seriousness for the offence itself.

On 11 March of this year, you were a witness to the murder of your father by a man with whom you had some form of relationship. He was 41; you were 17. After the death of your father, you told the police a false story which could have had the effect, for a short time at least, of throwing them off the trail which would ultimately lead them to the real offender.

You persisted in this story for a couple of hours before you told the police the truth. It is in telling the story and persisting in it for that time that the essence of this offence lies. It falls at the lower end of seriousness, largely because it was inevitable that your false story would be seen to be so by the police within a very short time. Nonetheless, it does constitute the offence to which you have pleaded guilty and I must sentence you in accordance with the law in respect of that offence.

It is sufficient for the purposes of these sentencing remarks to note that your upbringing has been a hard one. You are one of eight children. Your farther was an African American. You had a difficult and impoverished childhood, brought about not only by the poverty of your parents but also, to some extent at least, by the fact that your father's ethnicity was reflected in behaviour by those around you that was less than praiseworthy. You have reached the age of 17 without any great attainments in education and without so far being able to earn a living.

Your counsel has put forward that you had an idea that you might like to work with cattle, but, having regard to where you presently live and the location of any possible job in that respect, it seems to me to be nothing more than a pious hope that at one time or another…

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 [2002] VSC 456
Case: [2002] VSC 456
Decision Date: 23 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miller involved the defendant, Miller, who had pleaded guilty to being an accessory to murder. The court was tasked with sentencing Miller, a young offender, who had agreed to provide evidence for the Crown in exchange for his plea. The matter was heard in the relevant criminal court, where the sentencing implications of Miller's plea and his agreement to testify had to be considered.

The central legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentencing principles for a young offender who had assisted in a serious crime and the terms of the agreement with the Crown, which included a requirement for Miller to be of good behaviour for three years. The court had to balance these considerations against the gravity of Miller's involvement in the crime and his cooperation with the authorities.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged Miller's age and his decision to assist in bringing the perpetrators to justice as mitigating factors. However, it also emphasised the seriousness of his role as an accessory to murder. The court considered the terms of the agreement, which included a release on an undertaking to be of good behaviour for three years. Ultimately, the court determined that Miller's sentence should reflect both his cooperation and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court ordered Miller to serve a specific term of imprisonment, followed by a period of supervision under the good behaviour undertaking.

Orders