The King v Millen - [2025] QCA 135

[2025] QCA 135

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P
BRADLEY JA
DOYLE JA

CA No 57 of 2025
DC No 1901 of 2024

THE KING

MILLEN, Robert Bruce Applicant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 29 JULY 2025

JUDGMENT

MULLINS P: Mr Millen pleaded guilty on 5 March 2025 to one count of arson of a motor vehicle committed on 18 January 2024. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with a fixed parole release date of 5 September 2025 (after he had served six months in custody). Although Mr Millen was represented at the sentencing hearing, he appears for himself on this application for leave to appeal against sentence. The sole ground on which he relies is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
Mr Millen’s antecedents
Mr Millen was 58 years old when he offended. He has an extensive criminal history commencing from when he was 18 years old involving dishonesty offences, failure to comply with court orders, a break and enter, stealing, drug offences and a variety of street offending. On 17 June 2019, Mr Millen was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm committed on 27 April 2019 in addition to being sentenced for time already served for three breaches of bail and a contravene direction or requirement. Mr Millen pleaded guilty in the District Court on 20 March 2020 to threatening violence – discharge firearms or other act at night for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and given an immediate parole release date. The offending involved Mr Millen threatening to kill his neighbours and throwing a Molotov cocktail in their direction when they were in their front yard. The Molotov cocktail landed on the street outside their property. On 13 November 2020, he was convicted and fined for contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated offence) committed on 16 July 2020. He committed a Commonwealth offence of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence between 26 January and 11 February 2023 for which he was placed on a recognisance release order on 25 October 2023 in the sum of $3,000 to be of good behaviour for three years. He had two breaches of bail for the subject offence for which he was fined on 26 June 2024.
Mr Millen’s criminal history reflects his long history of alcohol and polysubstance use since his late teenage years. He fell from the 14^th floor of a hotel in 2010 and suffered serious physical injuries to his head, back, legs and arms and from that time relied on morphine and other medications for pain relief and to manage mental health conditions. He was on a disability pension from 2011.
On the sentencing, the discharge summary dated 7 May 2024 after Mr Millen was admitted to Townsville University Hospital for acute confusion was tendered and showed that he was diagnosed with delirium due to opioid withdrawal from previous medications with opioid additions. A medical certificate dated 20 December 2024 from his treating mental health,…

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 The King v Millen

Details

AGLC: The King v Millen [2025] QCA 135
Case: [2025] QCA 135
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The King v Millen, the applicant, Robert Bruce Millen, appealed against the sentence imposed on him for committing an act of arson on a motor vehicle. Mr Millen's extensive criminal history, which includes multiple instances of dishonesty offences, drug offences, and violent crimes, was taken into consideration during the sentencing process. The primary issue the Court of Appeal had to decide was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Mr Millen argued that the two-year imprisonment sentence, with a fixed parole release date after six months, was overly harsh. He also claimed that his prescribed medications had not been continued while in custody, which he believed was a factor warranting a reduced sentence.

The Court of Appeal examined the circumstances of the offence and Mr Millen's criminal history to assess whether the sentence was appropriate. They noted that the arson offence caused damage to the complainant's vehicle, which was a modest one, and considered Mr Millen's cognitive deficits and mental health issues as mitigating factors. However, the Court found that the sentence was neither plainly unreasonable nor unjust, given Mr Millen's criminal history and the need for personal deterrence and community protection. The Court also pointed out that the issues regarding his prescribed medications in custody did not directly relate to the appeal's ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal rejected the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, maintaining that the two-year imprisonment sentence with a parole release date after six months was appropriate. The Court's decision was based on the assessment of Mr Millen's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the mitigating factors considered during the sentencing process. The Court's order was to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders