R v Milton - [2012] NSWDC 310

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Milton [2012] NSWDC 310
Hearing dates: 14 December 2012
Decision date: 14 December 2012
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Ordered to perform a total of 300 hours community service

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Aggravated enter dwelling house with intent to steal - Stealing from a dwelling - Offender on s11 bond
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Jackson Milton
Representation: Solicitors:
The Director of Public Prosecutions
Armstrong Legal - Offender

File Number(s): 2011/188617

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: When Jackson Milton first appeared before me some time ago now, he was living in a residential rehabilitation facility and making progress towards putting his abuse of drugs behind him. With the consent of the Crown, the matter was adjourned under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, to allow Mr Milton to demonstrate rather than just promise, rehabilitation. When the matter came back before me today, Mr Milton had done what was expected of him. There is no suggestion that he is using drugs. He has fulltime work. He has not committed any further offences and he continues to engage with rehabilitation programs. In short, he has done what was expected of him. He has demonstrated rehabilitation rather than just promise it.

Of course, the most fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society. Usually that is done by imposing harsh sentences, where appropriate, in order that both individual offenders, and others who might be tempted to break the law, will be deterred from committing criminal offences. But on occasions, and this is one, the protection of society is best achieved by a sentence which promotes rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Of course, this is not at all to ignore the significant offences which Mr Milton committed. Whilst under the influence of drugs and after being appropriately refused more money by his parents, he went wandering the streets in order to find some way of obtaining some more money to buy more drugs. He came across a residence where a door was left ajar. He pushed it open and went inside. There were people sleeping inside at the time, a couple and their three children.

The man of the house woke up and went downstairs in the early hours of the morning. He saw the offender in his kitchen and said, eloquently, "what the fuck are you doing?" When Mr Milton started to walk off, Mr McDonald grabbed him and held him to the ground. He said at one stage, "why did you break in", and Mr Milton accurately replied, "I am a heroin addict". Mr McDonald asked Mr Milton to show him what he had got and what he had taken, and so Mr Milton took Mr McDonald to the back veranda of the home where Mr McDonald saw a significant amount of his property awaiting transport away from the home.

The police arrived soon afterwards and Mr Milton was taken into custody. Fortunately,…

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 Milton

Details

AGLC: R v Milton [2012] NSWDC 310
Case: [2012] NSWDC 310
Decision Date: 14 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Milton, the defendant faced criminal charges for entering a dwelling house with intent to steal. The dispute arose from an incident where the defendant unlawfully entered a home with the intention of committing theft. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing after the defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate penalty for the defendant's actions, considering the aggravating factors of the crime and the defendant's existing legal status under a section 11 bond.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's crime, given the aggravating factor of entering a dwelling house with intent to steal. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's prior legal history, specifically that he was already on a section 11 bond at the time of the offence. The court needed to weigh these factors to ensure the sentence was both punitive and rehabilitative, reflecting the seriousness of the crime while also considering the defendant's circumstances.

The court, after considering the aggravating factors and the defendant's existing bond, determined that a sentence of 300 hours of community service was appropriate. The court found that this form of punishment would adequately address the defendant's criminal behaviour while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. The sentence was seen as a balanced approach that served both the interests of justice and the needs of the community. The court ordered the defendant to perform a total of 300 hours of community service.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ordered to perform a total of 300 hours community service

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Milton [2012] NSWDC 310
Hearing dates:	14 December 2012
Decision date:	14 December 2012
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Ordered to perform a total of 300 hours community service
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Aggravated enter dwelling house with intent to steal - Stealing from a dwelling - Offender on s11 bond
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Jackson Milton
Representation:	Solicitors: The Director of Public Prosecutions Armstrong Legal - Offender
File Number(s):	2011/188617