R v Miller

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, R Miller, who had been convicted of sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal concerned whether the primary judge erred in their assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal was also asked to consider whether it should exercise its residual discretion to decline to intervene in the sentence.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold: first, whether the primary judge had adequately assessed the objective seriousness of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent when determining the sentence; and second, whether the sentence imposed was so low as to be manifestly inadequate, thereby justifying appellate intervention. The Court also had to consider the circumstances under which it would exercise its discretion to refuse to uphold a Crown appeal against sentence, even if an error was found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal. While the precise reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the Court found no error in the primary judge's sentencing decision or that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. Consequently, the Court declined to intervene in the sentence imposed on the respondent.