Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127

Milliner v R [2019] NSWCCA 127

Although there was overlap in the facts supporting both counts, the elements of each offence were distinct, and the acts amounting to grooming in count 2 were not confined to the attempts to procure the child in count 1. However, the degree of sentence accumulation imposed by the sentencing judge exceeded what was required to reflect total criminality. A lesser degree of accumulation was appropriate; accordingly, the sentences imposed at first instance were quashed and new sentences with reduced accumulation were imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Post Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences varied
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'attempted Procurement of Child for Unlawful Sexual Activity' 'travelling to Meet Child Following Grooming' 'crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S 66 Eb' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'attempted Procurement of Child for Unlawful Sexual Activity' 'travelling to Meet Child Following Grooming' 'crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S 66 Eb' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Post Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in the level of accumulation between sentences imposed for two related offences under s 66EB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)' 'Whether the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was overlap in the facts supporting both counts, the elements of each offence were distinct, and the acts amounting to grooming in count 2 were not confined to the attempts to procure the child in count 1. However, the degree of sentence accumulation imposed by the sentencing judge exceeded what was required to reflect total criminality. A lesser degree of accumulation was appropriate; accordingly, the sentences imposed at first instance were quashed and new sentences with reduced accumulation were imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences varied

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed and sentences imposed at first instance quashed.' 'In lieu thereof: For count 1, imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years from 5 April 2016 to 4 April 2019 and a balance of 2 years from 5 April 2019.' 'For count 2, imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years...