//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2023] ACTSC 3
Supreme Court of the ACT
2023-01-12
McCallum CJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Millard v Thurger Citation: [2023] ACTSC 3 Hearing Date: 12 January 2023 Decision Date: 12 January 2023 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: The application for bail is refused. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail application – Appeal from Magistrates Court – Where applicant has been sentenced and is awaiting appeal – merits of appeal – whether special or exceptional circumstances established – bail refused Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 9E Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 216 Parties: Jamie Millard (Appellant) Brandon Thurger (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) K McCann (Respondent) Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number: SCA 39 of 2022 McCallum CJ:
Jamie Millard was sentenced for a series of domestic violence offences and driving offences by Magistrate Taylor on 26 September 2022. Her Honour published careful and detailed reasons which are before me. Her Honour sentenced Mr Millard to a series of sentences with a total term of 4 years, 9 months and 21 days including a period of 7 months to serve out the balance of a suspended sentence on previous matters as a result of breach of a condition of the suspended sentence. Her Honour fixed a non-parole period of 39 months. The non-parole period commenced on 14 March 2022 and will expire on 13 June 2025.
The prosecutor accepted that, in accordance with the terms of s 216 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the applicant is entitled to make the present application for bail because he is not detained for any reason other than the sentences imposed by Magistrate Taylor. However, the prosecutor noted that the application is governed by s 9E of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT), which provides that a court must not grant bail to an applicant for bail in the present circumstances (of the applicant having been convicted and sentenced and pending an appeal against the sentences) unless satisfied that special or exceptional circumstances exist favouring the grant of bail.
The circumstances relied upon by the applicant to establish special or exceptional circumstances are that he needs to be at liberty in order to manage his business, to be with his current partner (who has recently given birth to their child) and to be able to work to earn funds to pay for a lawyer to conduct his appeal. He is presently self-represented and has been refused a grant of Legal Aid. Those are not the kinds of circumstances that would ordinarily satisfy the requirement to establish special or exceptional circumstances.
Separately, I have had regard to the apparent merits of the appeal. I have considered the very careful reasons given by Magistrate Taylor. It may be accepted that the sentence her Honour imposed in the aggregate entailed a measure of sternness, particularly in the amount of accumulation between the separate sentences. However, as her Honour was at pains to explain, the offences warranted stern punishment. Her Honour had regard in particular to the seriousness of the domestic violence offences and their impact on the victim.
Her Honour also had regard to the defendant's criminal history, which included five previous convictions for driving with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid, two previous convictions for contravening a protection order and two for driving while disqualified. As to the driving offences, her Honour also observed how very serious those matters were. In respect of both kinds of offences, her Honour considered that the protection of the public was an important consideration. She placed considerable weight on general deterrence and also on specific deterrence in light of the criminal history to which I have referred.
The prosecutor has noted that the present appeal against the alleged excessiveness of the sentence is listed for hearing on 29 March 2023. Assuming the appeal is determined relatively promptly after that, it may be expected that the applicant will know his fate within the next few months.
On no view of the judgment of Magistrate Taylor is it likely that the applicant, even if successful in establishing manifest excess, would be resentenced to a term of imprisonment that would expire before that time. That is a powerful consideration in considering whether special or exceptional circumstances are established, even assuming (contrary to the view I have taken) that there is merit in the appeal.
In all the circumstances I am not satisfied that the requirement of s 9E is met. It follows in accordance with the Bail Act that I must not grant bail.
Accordingly, the application is refused.
I certify that the preceding nine [9] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice McCallum Associate: Date: 3 April 2023
Millard
Thurger [2023] ACTSC 3