Site Logo

Millard v Pomeroy [2022] ACTSC 319

The offender was sentenced following a conviction to 1 count of using a postal service to menace contrary to s 471.12 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Original sentence imposed 4 months imprisonment. The offender appealed on grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing magistrate erred in failing to articulate the discount afforded by the offender’s mental illness or impairment.

Manifest Excess: The sentence imposed was not of itself outside any established range and the structure of the sentence was wholly concurrent, which demonstrated a degree of leniency in circumstances where the offence was entirely separate from the offence for which the offender had already been sentenced. It is not considered that there was no period of imprisonment warranted. Once that threshold is crossed, to debate whether the term should have been 2 or 4 months would be to engage in impermissible tinkering.

Mental Condition: Offender’s mental disability was considered in the various ways envisaged in Verdins, even if the sentencing magistrate did not use the Verdins taxonomy. The sentencing magistrate accepted that general deterrence should be moderated and expressly considered what extra supports would be required for the offender while in prison.

Leave to appeal allowed. Appeal dismissed.
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2023 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions