R v Milliken - [2012] NZHC 3052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-019-2210

CRI-2012-019-6755 [2012] NZHC 3052

THE QUEEN

v

JEFFREY IAN MILLIKEN

Hearing: 16 November 2012

Counsel: S Cameron for Crown
K Clews for Prisoner

Judgment: 16 November 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R V JEFFREY IAN MILLIKEN HC HAM CRI-2010-019-2210 [16 November 2012]

[1] Mr Milliken, you appear today for sentence having been found guilty by a jury in the District Court on charges of injuring with intent to injure, assault with a weapon and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The maximum penalty in relation to the first two of those charges is five years imprisonment. The maximum penalty in respect of the firearms and ammunition charges is four years imprisonment in each case. The jury also found you guilty on a charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment.

[2] In addition, you pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of being in possession of the pre-cursor substance pseudoephedrine. The maximum sentence on that charge is a sentence of five years imprisonment. In October 2011, the District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you on that charge and committed you to this Court for sentence. Before this Court could sentence you, however, you absconded and a warrant for your arrest was issued.

[3] You had not been located by the time the trial in the District Court on the remaining charges began and, for that reason, the trial proceeded in your absence. You were therefore convicted following a trial at which you were not present. That is a matter that you were responsible for, and you need to take the consequences for it.

The facts

The offending on 22 February 2011

[4] The facts giving rise to the first set of charges charge arise out of an incident that occurred on 22 February 2011. You and two associates, Mr Schubert and Mr Douglas, went to an address just outside Morrinsville where you believed you would find property stolen in an earlier burglary. While you were at the address the occupier, Mr Wilson, returned, and an altercation took place. You and Mr Schubert had gone there with weapons. You had a shotgun and a pistol.

[5] During the altercation, Mr Wilson remained in his car. Mr Schubert went to his car, brought out the shotgun and went over to Mr Wilson. He rammed the barrel of the shotgun through the window into the car and jammed it into the mouth and lip area of Mr Wilson, thereby injuring him. This series of events, coupled with other skirmishes that took place during the altercation, gave rise to the charges of injuring with intent to injure and assault with a weapon.

[6] The police were eventually called, and the three of you drove away. Mr Douglas was driving the vehicle and you and Mr Schubert were passengers. After you left Mr Wilson’s property the vehicle stopped, and the firearms were deposited…

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 Milliken

Details

AGLC: R v Milliken [2012] NZHC 3052
Case: [2012] NZHC 3052
Decision Date: 16 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Milliken involved the sentencing of Jeffrey Ian Milliken by the High Court of New Zealand. Milliken was found guilty by a jury in the District Court on charges of injuring with intent to injure, assault with a weapon, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, possession of methamphetamine for supply, and possession of the precursor substance pseudoephedrine. The court needed to determine appropriate sentences for these charges, taking into account the maximum penalties for each, the totality of Milliken's offending, and various aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court assessed starting points for each set of charges based on relevant authorities and previous sentences. For the charges related to the incident on 22 February 2011, the court determined a starting point of two years three months imprisonment. For the methamphetamine possession charge, the court identified a starting point of three years six months imprisonment, increased by ten months due to Milliken's previous convictions, resulting in a cumulative sentence of four years four months imprisonment. For the pseudoephedrine possession charge, the court set a starting point of three years imprisonment, increased by 12 months due to aggravating factors, resulting in a cumulative sentence of four years imprisonment. After considering mitigating factors, such as Milliken's guilty plea, the court adjusted the sentences to ensure they were not excessive in totality.

The final sentences imposed were two years three months imprisonment for injuring with intent to injure, 12 months imprisonment for assault with a weapon, one year six months imprisonment for each firearms and ammunition possession charge (all served concurrently), three years three months imprisonment for methamphetamine possession (cumulative), and two years imprisonment for pseudoephedrine possession (cumulative). The court also ordered the destruction of drugs, drug-related paraphernalia, and the forfeiture of cash found in Milliken's possession.

Orders