R v Mills - [2002] QCA 264

[2002] QCA 264

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WHITE J
WILSON J

CA No 89 of 2002

THE QUEEN

WAYNE MILLS

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/07/2002

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 28 February this year to four counts: one of burglary, one of deprivation of liberty, one of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, and one of assault with intent to rape. On each of the offences of burglary and assault with intent to rape he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, on the deprivation of liberty count he was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and on the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed he was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against that total sentence of three and a half years imprisonment.

At the time he committed these offences on 1 May 2001 the applicant was 34 years of age. The female complainant with whom the applicant had been living in a de facto relationship for various short periods, was 41 years of age. Their relationship was unstable and at times violent. The complainant had obtained a protection order under the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act 1989 (Qld) against the applicant on 5 February 2001, a breach of which the applicant committed on 12 April 2001. He also had a previous conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm in 1992.

The applicant and the complainant had parted after an angry argument earlier in the day in question, though their respective versions about what had caused this differed. At about 5 p.m. that day the applicant went to the complainant's house. The complainant and her 12 year old daughter were inside and did not answer the applicant when he knocked on the door. He yelled some abuse and left. He returned half an hour later and again called out. Again she did not answer and again he left. There were then several telephone calls which she did not answer.

The applicant returned at about 7.20p.m. He walked around the outside of the house calling out initially that he loved her but later threatened to kill her. He pulled a screen off a front window of the house attempting to get in. When he could not do so by that means he smashed a glass sliding door with a shovel, gaining entry by that means. It is of some significance that he brought the shovel with him for the express purpose of breaking in.

The complainant's daughter ran to the neighbour's house to get help. Once inside the applicant grabbed the complainant by the throat and told her she was going to die. He dragged her by the hair into the main bedroom pulling out a clump of hair in doing so. He tipped the mattress causing her to fall. He then barricaded the windows with mattresses and the door with a dressing table. He was still armed with the shovel.

He commenced to…

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 Mills

Details

AGLC: R v Mills [2002] QCA 264
Case: [2002] QCA 264
Decision Date: 25 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an appeal by Wayne Mills, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including burglary, deprivation of liberty, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, and assault with intent to rape. The offences were committed against his de facto partner, with whom he had an unstable and violent relationship. Mills was sentenced to a total of three and a half years imprisonment, which he sought to appeal. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed on Mills was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, the plea of guilty, and other mitigating factors. The Court considered the severity of the offences, the history of violence between the parties, and the mitigating factors such as Mills' age, plea of guilty, and good references.

The Court held that while the sentence of three and a half years was high, it was not manifestly excessive. The Court compared the case with previous cases involving similar offences and found that the sentence was consistent with those cases. The Court also noted the seriousness of the offences, the history of violence, and the need for general deterrence. The Court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, affirming the sentence imposed by the District Court. The judgment underscores the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances in sentencing, including the nature of the offences, the history of violence, and the mitigating factors, while also ensuring that the sentence serves the purposes of punishment and deterrence.

Orders