R v Mills; R v Smiroldo

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mills; R v Smiroldo [2020] NSWDC 919
Hearing dates: 6 November 2020
Date of orders: 9 November 2020
Decision date: 09 November 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

Mills:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Smiroldo:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months

Catchwords:

CRIME — Property offences — Break, enter and commit serious indictable offence

CRIME — Violent offences — Stalking or intimidation — Circumstances of aggravation — Offensive weapon

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 112 subs (3)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 3A

Cases Cited:

Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131

Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571

Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bradley Mills (Offender)
Mark Anthony Smiroldo (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Rainey (Crown)
Mr Royce (Smiroldo)
Ms Tawagi (Mills)
File Number(s): 2019/00352063
2019/00351997
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. Each of the offenders stands to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to the following offence. That on 8 November 2019 in Clarendon they each broke and entered the dwelling house of Jackson McJennet located at 216 Hawkesbury Valley Way and committed the serious indictable offence of intimidation in circumstances of special aggravation, namely, that they each knew there were persons present within the dwelling house and that they were also armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a gel-ball calibre repeating air pistol.

  2. That is an offence under s 112 subs (3) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment and there is an applicable standard non-parole period of seven years.

The Facts

  1. The Facts are agreed and the following is taken from them. The victims in this matter are Wyatt Farrelly; Cassandra Wells, Jackson McJennet; Jayden Pepper and Chad Cotter.

  2. On 7 November 2019 Mr Farrelly, Ms Wells and Mr McJennet were at the Hawkesbury Races for Mr McJennet’s birthday celebration and they spent most of the day there, drinking and placing bets. After the races finished they went to the Clarendon Tavern where they continued drinking. Around midnight they were joined by Mr Pepper who had come from having dinner and drinks at the Clarendon Tavern. At one point Ms Wells recalled seeing the offender, Mr Mills, talking to his fiancé, and remembered Mr Mills appearing angry. Ms Wells knew Mr Mills as she used to work with his fiancé. At around 1.30am they left and went to Mr McJennet’s house which was not very far away. At the house were Mr Farrelly, Mr McJennet, Ms Wells, Mr Pepper and Mr Cotter. Another person, Erin Hooton also resided at this house however she was already in her room asleep. The group continued to drink at Mr McJennet’s house.

  3. At around 3.40am there was a knock on the back screen door. This was the two offenders,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Mills; R v Smiroldo and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWDC 919
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Mills and Smiroldo, were convicted for their involvement in a break-in and subsequent assault. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Both respondents pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, and Smiroldo further pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon during the commission of the offence. The victims of the break-in were subjected to threats and violence, and their property was stolen.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for the respondents, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. The court needed to consider the impact of the crime on the victims, the role of each respondent in the offence, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The respondents' criminal history and any personal circumstances were also relevant to the sentencing process.

In determining the appropriate sentences, the court found that the offences were serious and had a significant impact on the victims. Mills was considered to have played a less active role in the assault, but was still complicit in the break-in. Smiroldo's possession of an offensive weapon during the offence was an aggravating factor. The court also considered the respondents' previous criminal records and prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, Mills was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, and Smiroldo was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months.

The final orders of the court were that Mills be imprisoned for 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years, and Smiroldo be imprisoned for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months. The sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences and the degree of culpability of each respondent. The court has imposed penalties that aim to both punish the respondents and deter future similar offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Mills:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Smiroldo:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months

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.