The Queen v Miles

Case [2015] ACTSC 410


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

The Queen v Miles

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 410

Hearing Date(s):

9 December 2015

DecisionDate:

9 December 2015

Before:

Walmsley AJ

Decision:

The application for bail is refused.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – application for bail – mental health concerns – self-represented applicant – likelihood of custodial sentence – risk of reoffending

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 403(1), 404(1)

Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 22

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Jordan Miles (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms M Moss (Crown)

Mr J Miles (Self-represented) (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Mr J Miles (Self-represented) (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SCC 249 of 2015

WALMSLEY AJ:

  1. Mr Miles was born on 4 May 1978.  He is 37 years of age.  He recently pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to three counts.  The first is arson, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment (s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)). The second and third offences are of damaging property and they each carry the maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (s 403(1) of the Criminal Code). 

  1. In evidence before me was a Statement of Facts prepared by police.  Mr Miles told me that he did not disagree with the facts outlined. According to those facts, on 26 October 2015, there was an argument between Mr Miles and his father at his father’s home in Kambah, in the course of which Mr Miles, when in possession of two kitchen knives, attempted to jump on his father.  His mother called police and police came but Mr Miles’s parents told police that they did not wish proceedings to be taken against him.  At that stage, it seems, he had left the premises. 

  1. He returned to the premises later, however, and there was what could only be described as a siege.  He was in a highly agitated mood. He was very abusive towards the police.  He had possession of a cordless power drill and a kitchen knife and he had a most aggressive demeanour.  He told police several times that he was in for the long haul and they would need to get the TRG (Tactical Response Group) to get him out. 

  1. Eventually he barricaded himself in the premises and told police he was happy to go up in a fireball.  He spread accelerant in the house and lit it. The house caught fire and considerable damage was done.  Eventually police managed to subdue him and he was taken from the house to hospital. 

  1. While he was in hospital, he made comments suggesting that he might have considered suicide.

  1. But Mr Miles told me they had been jocular comments on his part, and I accept that. It may not have been a situation where he was truly contemplating suicide.  He did apparently, (and I think he concedes this), say to police: “I should have done it the 308 way”, which I took to be a reference to behaving in…

Continue reading The Queen v Miles

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Miles [2015] ACTSC 410
Case
[2015] ACTSC 410
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Miles was a criminal law case where the applicant, Miles, sought bail from the court. Miles, representing himself, faced a significant risk of a custodial sentence due to the nature of the charges against him, and the court had to consider his mental health concerns in the context of his bail application. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to grant bail to a self-represented applicant with potential mental health issues, weighing this against the likelihood of a custodial sentence and the risk of reoffending.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. They included assessing the risk of reoffending and the likelihood of a custodial sentence, considering the applicant's mental health, and evaluating the suitability of bail for a self-represented litigant. The court needed to balance the applicant's right to liberty against the need to protect the community, especially given the potential severity of the custodial sentence he faced.

The court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented. It acknowledged the applicant's mental health concerns but determined that these did not sufficiently mitigate the risk of reoffending or the need to protect the community. The court concluded that the likelihood of a custodial sentence and the risk of reoffending were high, and that granting bail would not adequately safeguard the community. Therefore, the court refused the application for bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for bail is refused.

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.