R v Miller

Case [2020] NSWDC 857


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Miller [2020] NSWDC 857
Hearing dates: 31 August 2020 – 3 September 2020
Date of orders: 10 September 2020
Decision date: 10 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

The accused is found guilty

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 35(4), 418 and 419

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 38, 138

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133

Cases Cited:

R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613

Mahmood v R (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Darren Miller (Accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr D Robinson (Crown)
Mr P Butterfield (Accused)

Solicitors:
Mr T Gabriel (Crown)
Mr A Dikha (Accused)
File Number(s): 2019/181258
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. HIS HONOUR: The Accused stood trial before me, sitting without a jury, on an indictment which contained the following single count. That on 24 March 2019, at Schofields, he wounded Liam Barr and was reckless as to causing Liam Barr actual bodily harm. That is an offence under s 35(4) of the Crimes Act.

The Facts

  1. The following factual matters were not in dispute in the trial. On the evening of 23 March 2019, the twenty-first birthday party of Luke Hawes was held at residential premises at 31 Bellflower Avenue, Schofields. Both the accused and the complainant, Mr Barr, attended the party that evening, along with a number of other people that they each knew. Relevantly those people included Thomas Daver; Luke Hawes; Brendan Hawes; Jeremy Hawes; Brylie Lawford the girlfriend of the complainant; Paige Sharpe, a cousin of the complainant and a former girlfriend of the accused; Lachlan Spencer; Luke Vasallo and Nathan Ward.

  2. The complainant and the accused knew each other prior to the party from their schooldays. The complainant attended the party with his girlfriend and Thomas Daver. Many of the people at the party, including the complainant and the accused, consumed alcohol that evening; and a number of attendees at the party consumed very considerable quantities of alcohol.

  3. Around midnight there was an incident towards the rear fence of the backyard of the premises involving the person, Thomas Daver, and other attendees at the party. The complainant came to the assistance of Mr Daver during that incident. On the evidence the accused did not actively involve himself in the incident which occurred at the rear fence of the premises, but it can be seen as a trigger for subsequent events. The complainant came to Mr Daver’s assistance during that incident and moved with him, and other persons, to the front of the premises through a side-gate and proceeded to leave the premises along Bellflower Avenue. I will discuss the evidence concerning what I will term “the fence incident” shortly.

  4. The accused moved from the rear premises after the complainant and Mr Daver had done so. At some point after that there was a physical interaction between the complainant and…

Continue reading R v Miller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Miller [2020] NSWDC 857
Case
[2020] NSWDC 857
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Miller, the defendant faced charges related to a violent incident in which he allegedly inflicted serious injuries upon another individual. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria to determine the defendant's culpability and to pass judgment on the appropriate sentence. The victim in the case suffered from grievous bodily harm, necessitating the court's attention to the seriousness of the offence and the necessity for deterrence and retribution.

The primary legal issues the court had to address involved the defendant's intent and the degree of recklessness exhibited during the commission of the offence. The prosecution argued that the defendant's actions demonstrated a high level of recklessness, warranting a severe punishment. Conversely, the defence contended that the defendant's intent was not to cause such severe harm and that mitigating factors should be taken into account. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was reckless and whether the injuries sustained by the victim were a direct result of the defendant's actions.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and expert medical opinions. The court found that the defendant's conduct was indeed reckless and that the injuries inflicted upon the victim were directly attributable to the defendant's actions. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need for a punitive sentence to deter similar conduct in the future. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of the charge of reckless wounding. The court is yet to deliver the final orders regarding sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found guilty

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.