DPP v Millhouse

1. Nicholas John Millhouse, you have entered a plea of guilty to one count of aggravated reckless threat to kill contrary to s 30(a)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the maximum penalty for which is 13 years’ imprisonment, one count of aggravated common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act, the maximum penalty for which is three years’ imprisonment, and one count of trespass contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth), the maximum penalty for which is a fine of 10 penalty units, being $3300.

2. In relation to the count of aggravated threat to kill, it is agreed that you are entitled to a discount of 25 percent on account of your guilty plea. I will allow you the full discount in that amount. In relation to the count of aggravated common assault, you are entitled to a discount of between 15 and 20 percent. The prosecution does not cavil with you being allowed the full discount of 20 percent. I will allow you the full discount of 20 percent for that offence. In relation to the count of trespass, no discount is applicable because under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) discounts will have application only where the court considers that there is a real likelihood that it will sentence an offender to imprisonment.

3. As these offences occurred in the context of family violence, the detail of which I will set out below, higher maximum penalties are now provided following the enactment of s 48C of the Crimes Act in 2022. These higher penalties reflect the seriousness with which the Legislative Assembly views family violence and the sentencing considerations which courts are now required to take into account in sentencing offenders involved in family violence offences. I proceed accordingly. I am required to reflect in my sentences the community’s intolerance for the use of violence in familial relationships between a victim and an offender.

Facts

4. At the date of these offences, you had been in a relationship with the victim, MT, for about five years and had lived in her residence during that time. During sentencing submissions, I was informed that you have paid for and performed several improvements to the residence of MT. It became clear to me that you may have had a claim for some form of interest in the property and there was some possible doubt about whether you could trespass in those circumstances. Considering what follows, I will put those matters to one side.

5. On 17 March 2025, MT sought police assistance to deal with your mental health issues. Those issues derive from a traumatic brain injury suffered by you in 2007. That injury has had a devastating and profoundly debilitating effect upon you in every aspect of your life, your work, your relationships and the myriad connections in your life.

6. You were asked to leave the residence, which you did, but you later returned, and MT found you asleep on her couch at about 4:30am on 18 March 2025. This was said to be the basis of the trespass charge. During that day, you had an intense argument with MT, who told you that she did not want you living at her house anymore. This enraged you. In your rage, you told MT that you wanted to kill her and burn down her house. This is the basis of the aggravated reckless threat to kill charge.

7. The argument continued and you placed your forearm on the upper chest of MT and pushed her backwards. This is the basis of the aggravated common assault charge. MT contacted the police and met with them at a location away from the residence. She was quite visibly upset at the time and told police that she was scared and concerned when you said you were going to kill her and burn the house down. She told police that she did not believe you would follow through with the threat as you had then said you would get a lawyer and take everything from her. MT told police that you had an acquired brain injury that affects your demeanour and behaviour; she did not want you to go to jail but to get help for your mental health issues. You later voluntarily attended a police station, and you were arrested.

8. You accept that your offending conduct is serious and was committed in a family violence context against your intimate partner. The family violence offending occurred within the home you had been sharing with MT. [Redacted].

9. Your counsel submits, and I accept, that your threats were made in person during an intense argument. You were told that there was no future in your relationship, and this upset you greatly. I set out below the medical evidence about your traumatic brain injury and its sequalae. The effects of that injury are that your emotional regulation is impaired, you have moderate disability in cognitive functioning and extreme disability in managing anger and social participation. In the exercise of my discretion, I must first have regard to the stated intention of the legislature to deal differently with events the subject of charges that occur in a family violence situation, notwithstanding your personal circumstances.

10. Your counsel also submits that I should not accept that the victim feared you would carry out your threat to kill her and burn down her house because she also told police that you said that you would get a lawyer and take everything from her. It was submitted that this was therefore a spontaneous, hollow and reckless remark made by you in the heat of the moment. You admitted to police that you were furious during this argument.

11. I am unable to fully accept this submission. Any such threat when made can engender fear in a family violence situation so that it can have an intended or unintended effect regardless of the level of anger of its maker (or the fortitude of the victim). The Assembly has not seen fit to prescribe levels of fear nor to prescribe some reasonableness requirement. That is not an epiphany considering the Assembly’s stated intention to increase penalties for family violence offences that ordinarily occur in a domestic situation where the affected party is usually exposed and often helpless. I consider that any other approach would fail to give full effect to the intention of the legislature.

12. I accept that what you said to the victim occurred in a fit of rage and in the heat of the moment. I also accept that, upon reflection, you regret everything you said and did and that you are remorseful for your actions. I also accept that you did not strike, punch or kick the victim; you pushed her backwards using your forearm to her upper chest and there was only a brief application of force. However, you assaulted the victim in the circumstances of the rage that you were displaying towards her after she informed you that the relationship was over and that you were no longer welcome at the home. Your actions occurred in circumstances of domestic violence. The same considerations apply.

Victim impact

13. The Court has not received a victim impact statement. I am satisfied that your threats had a profound effect upon the victim and engendered fear that you would carry out those threats.

Subjective circumstances

14. You have always had a good relationship with your parents, with whom you are now living. You left school without completing Year 12 and obtained employment. You worked for the government for about 14 years and resigned in 2018. You suffered a traumatic brain injury in 2007 and had great difficulties when you returned to work because of cognitive limitations. You left that employment after a number of demotions. You are not employed and receive a disability support pension. The traumatic brain injury suffered by you has had an extraordinarily adverse effect upon you. It has had profoundly adverse consequences.

15. Prior to your traumatic brain injury, you did not suffer any mental health issues; you were married for a short time and have a son who is now 30 years of age. You are on good terms with your former wife and your son. You had a long, fruitful and rewarding work history and you were appointed to the executive level in your government workplace. The effects of the traumatic brain injury meant that you lost your executive appointment and suffered obviously humiliating demotions in the workplace.

16. In his report of 18 February 2025, Dr Phillip Fletcher sets out a history of the effects of your traumatic brain injury. His diagnosis is that you suffer permanent cognitive disability with anxiety and depression, and you have had one episode of suicidal ideation. You voluntarily left your employment after getting into an altercation which was the subject of an investigation. The investigation result may well have been adverse to you but your work capacity was so diminished that resignation was an inevitability. Since that time, you have only been able to find low-level employment. You have become very worried about your emotional control, you feel anxious and easily overwhelmed and you are very regulated in your behaviours. You eat the same breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. Dr Fletcher said that you self-medicated with cannabis to take the edge of your anxiety and to make day-to-day life easier, but you had not consumed cannabis in two months. You have been a long-term user of cannabis since your teenage years. Dr Fletcher asked that you have a neuro psychometric assessment.

17. That assessment was undertaken in May 2025 by Ms Zoe Alcorn, Clinical Neuropsychology Registrar at Canberra Health Services. Her report of 22 May 2025 discloses that an MRI brain scan performed on 26 July 2024 demonstrates chronic haemorrhage in the left temporal lobe and thalamus with brain softening. There were also microbleeds in the temporal and frontal white matter. These findings are all consistent with the occurrence and ongoing effects of a traumatic brain injury. You have ongoing difficulties managing anger and navigating interpersonal relationships in the workplace which has contributed to your periods of unemployment. You experience significant thinking and memory difficulties, including ongoing short-term memory difficulties and difficulties with retention of information. You suffer significant emotional dysregulation, characterised by involuntary emotional responses. You are often unaware of your cognitive limitations. You are prone to emotional dysregulation, and you often “flare up” in response to conflict or being directed by others. Your ability to hold information and manipulate it to complete a task at hand is deficient. You have severely impaired ability to process information and so you have difficulty recalling earlier conversations. You lose your train of thought mid-sentence. Your emotional lability causes involuntary emotional responses, leading to embarrassment and social discomfort. Your memory impairments limit your capacity for new learning; your executive dysfunction affects your ability to adapt, problem-solve and manage complex tasks. You cannot reliably recall your history or retain key recommendations at appointments.

18. After undertaking a level of testing, Ms Alcorn said that you have a mild to moderate level of general disability, you have a moderate disability in cognitive functioning and a severe to extreme disability in social participation. These findings highlight substantial functional limitations in these domains which are consistent with clinical observations that your disabilities constitute a permanent and substantial disability which significantly limits your capacity for independent living and participation in employment.

19. I am satisfied from all this material that, at the time of these offences, you were suffering from a mental impairment and a permanent cognitive disability, and that this is ongoing. Prior to your traumatic brain injury, you were functioning at a very high level and had achieved an employment status of executive level. You have completely lost that capacity. I am satisfied that your mental condition played a role in these offences in a material way, and your moral culpability is reduced to an extent. I am also satisfied that, in your circumstances, the principles of specific deterrence and denunciation are moderated.

Pleas of guilty

20. You entered your pleas of guilty to the aggravated threat to kill and trespass charges on the second mention date in the Magistrates Court. You are entitled to a full 25 percent discount for the plea of guilty to the aggravated threat to kill charge. In relation to the aggravated common assault charge, your plea of guilty was entered in connection with the criminal case conference. You are entitled to a 20 percent discount. I have decided to give you the full discounts as described above.

Time in custody

21. You have spent 32 days in custody in relation to these offences. This will be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentences.

Consideration

22. I am satisfied that you have demonstrated remorse for the purposes of s 33(1)(w) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. You made frank admissions to the police on the day of these offences. You entered early pleas of guilty on the threat to kill and trespass charges. You have now been assessed by specialist medical practitioners and a neuropsychologist. You are suffering significant mental deficits. The admissions that you have made in the context of your medical difficulties satisfy me, based upon my review of all of the medical reports, that you have demonstrated remorse. This is despite the absence of what may usually be described as some act which overtly demonstrates that remorse. Notwithstanding, my view remains the same and for the same reasons. In your meetings with the Community Corrections branch of the ACT Corrective Services, you acknowledged your wrongdoing surrounding the threat to kill and the common assault. The night before you had not slept after a mental health welfare check was performed by police and you were then requested to sleep at your parents’ home. You wandered Canberra City for the night.

23. Although you have been assessed as being of a low risk of general reoffending, I accept that your greatest risk factor is your mental impairment and it is essential that you continue to engage with medical professionals, especially psychologists, upon the basis and with the regularity which they prescribe.

24. The prosecution concedes that, in your quite unique circumstances, the threshold in s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act has not been crossed. The same position was urged upon me by your counsel. I accept those submissions because I am satisfied that your mental impairment, which I have set out in detail above, as well as your inability to properly control your emotional state, leads to a conclusion that your moral culpability for the offence is reduced. In those circumstances, denunciation and deterrence play a much less significant role. The supports that you have in place are your parents and some close associates. That can easily change. The ease with which those arrangements can change has, to an extent, informed the orders that I propose to make connected with your sentence. As I said during sentencing submissions, you are incapable of working in a close work environment where you are subject to conflicting instructions that require discernment of importance and a hierarchical structure. Dr Fletcher suggested that you should commence on a low dose of citalopram, subject to your neuropsychological and cognitive assessment. That assessment has now occurred, and you must continue with medical treatment in order to achieve the best possible result. This of course includes returning to see Dr Fletcher and any other medical specialist to whom you are referred.

25. In sentencing submissions, the prosecution conceded that a non-custodial sentence under s 13 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act was appropriate in relation to the threat to kill and common assault offences. You have pleaded guilty to the offences charged and, in respect of each offence, a conviction will be recorded. I consider that the threat to kill and common assault offences can each be dealt with by way of a good behaviour order of two years.

26. I have earlier referred to the trespass charge and its circumstances. In light of those matters, I consider that it is necessary only that I record a conviction with no further penalty. Orders

27. The orders of the Court are: (1) On the charge of aggravated threat to kill (CAN 3098/2025), you are convicted and required to enter into an undertaking to comply with your good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from today. (2) On the charge of aggravated common assault (SC CAN 459/2025), you are convicted and required to enter into an undertaking to comply with your good behaviour obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of two years from today. (3) The undertakings referred to in orders 1 and 2 are subject to the additional conditions that, for a period of two years: (a) you be subject to supervision by the Director-General and obey all reasonable directions of that person; (b) you undertake such medical treatment and supervision as you are directed by your treating medical practitioners and upon the terms and conditions which they stipulate; (c) you supply samples of blood, breath, hair, saliva or urine for alcohol or drug testing if required by a corrections officer; and (d) you attend any educational, vocational, psychological, psychiatric or other programs or counselling as required by a corrections officer. (4) On the charge of trespass (CAN 3099/2025), you are convicted, and no further penalty is recorded.

I certify that the preceding twenty-seven [27] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Slattery. Associate: Date: