Regina (Applicant) Shane Richard Millwood (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel S Dowling (Applicant) P Strickland SC (Respondent) Solicitor S Kavanagh (Applicant) Legal Aid NSW (Respondent
File Number(s):
10/418221
Decision under appeal
Jurisdiction:
9101
Citation:
N/A
Date of Decision:
2011-07-26 00:00:00
Before:
Black DCJ
File Number(s):
10/418221
Judgment
BATHURST CJ: For the reasons given by Simpson J, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
SIMPSON J: Pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act1912, the Director of Public Prosecutions ("the DPP") appeals against the asserted inadequacy of sentences imposed upon the respondent in District Court at Lismore, following his pleas of guilty to one count of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death, and one count of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. Both offences were committed in the early hours of 18 July 2010 as part of the same event. In each count the single circumstance of aggravation alleged in the indictment was that the respondent's ability to drive was very substantially impaired by the fact that he was under the influence of a combination of drugs (they being alcohol and cannabis): see Crimes Act1900 s 52A(7).
Pursuant to s 52A(2) of the Crimes Act , the first count carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years. Pursuant to s 52A(4) the second count carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 11 years.
On the first count, Black DCJ sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for 4 years, commencing on 8 September 2011, and expiring on 7 September 2015, with a non-parole period of 3 years, expiring on 7 September 2014. On the second count he sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for 2 years, commencing on 7 September 2014 (it should have been 8 September 2014), and therefore wholly accumulated upon…
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 Millwood
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Case
[2012] NSWCCA 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Millwood, the defendant was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Millwood was charged with dangerous driving occasioning death and grievous bodily harm. The incident arose from a motor vehicle collision resulting in the death of one passenger and severe injuries to another. The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with assessing the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the District Court. The central legal issues before the court involved the application of sentencing guidelines under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, particularly the objective criminality of the offences and the defendant’s moral culpability. The court had to consider the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence, and the specific circumstances surrounding the incident, such as the defendant's provisional driving licence status, the presence of drugs and alcohol, and the restrictions applicable to the vehicle involved.
The court found that the District Court had correctly applied the principles of sentencing, taking into account the objective criminality of the offences and the moral culpability of the defendant. The court acknowledged the severe consequences of the defendant's actions but also recognised mitigating factors such as the defendant’s guilty plea and remorse. In its reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeal noted the importance of deterrence in sentencing for dangerous driving, while also balancing the need to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. The court held that the District Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence, considering all relevant factors, including the statutory guidelines and the objectives of sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the District Court.
The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed the sentence handed down by the District Court. The defendant was to serve a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions relating to licence disqualifications and vehicle restrictions as outlined in the sentencing legislation. The court emphasised the importance of the sentencing framework in achieving justice, particularly in cases involving dangerous driving that results in serious harm or death.