• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The vehicle belonged to a person who had brought it to the unit complex where Millen lived because Millen had offered to help repair its engine. The vehicle was left on the grass verge, and its key was left with Millen. After an argument at a bowls club, the owner and his partner left. Later that evening, Millen called the owner, asked him to move the vehicle, and threatened to burn it. He repeated the threat in text messages and later sent a message saying he had burnt it. A neighbour called emergency services. Millen tried to put out the fire with a garden hose, and fire and rescue personnel extinguished it ([6]).

The judgment describes the vehicle as “very modest” and records that its owner had bought it for $1,650 about seven years earlier ([6], [8]). It does not provide a valuation of the vehicle at the date it was destroyed.

Millen was 58 when he offended. The judgment sets out a long criminal history, starting when he was 18, including dishonesty, drug and street offences, breaches of court orders, and an earlier assault conviction ([2]). It also records earlier threatening conduct involving a Molotov cocktail thrown in the direction of neighbours, and a more recent Commonwealth offence involving use of a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence ([2]).

The sentencing material described significant health and disability issues. Millen had suffered serious injuries after falling from the 14th floor of a hotel in 2010. The records referred to chronic pain, PTSD, depression and anxiety, long-term opioid treatment, substance misuse, and cognitive impairment. A forensic psychologist assessed that the cognitive impairment affected Millen’s judgment and reduced his moral culpability to some extent, while also finding that he knew what he was doing was wrong ([3]–[5]).

At sentence, the judge accepted that Millen’s cognitive deficits affected his ability to make calm and rational choices and control his anger. The judge treated those deficits as reducing moral culpability, while also considering personal deterrence and community protection relevant given Millen’s history and continued offending ([7]). The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. Bradley JA and Doyle JA agreed with Mullins P ([10]–[13]).

Why the court decided this way

The Court separated the challenge to the head sentence from the complaint about the time Millen would spend in custody before release on parole. Millen did not challenge the two-year head sentence itself. The Court nevertheless addressed it briefly, identifying three relevant considerations for sentencing arson: the extent of property damage, whether there was fraud, and whether there was a risk to other people’s safety ([8]). It cited R v Cramond [1999] QCA 11 and R v Johnson (2007) 173 A Crim R 94 at [8] for those considerations.

The property damage was limited to the destruction of the complainant’s vehicle, which the Court described as very modest. But the Court did not assess that fact in isolation. It said that, when the damage was considered together with Millen’s criminal history, he had “no cause to complain about the head sentence” ([8]). This is the Court’s case-specific assessment, not a detailed tariff or a general sentencing formula for all arson cases.

The parole-release aspect turned partly on Millen’s argument that he wanted immediate parole so he could return to the medication and pain relief he had received before sentence. The Court treated the medication issue as a complaint about his experience in custody after sentence, rather than a feature bearing on whether the sentence was excessive when imposed ([9]). It therefore did not treat that later custody experience as establishing the appeal ground.

The Court also considered what the sentencing judge had already taken into account. The sentencing judge had considered Millen’s cognitive and mental health issues when setting the parole release date, and the Court referred to the requirement to serve six months as one-quarter of the two-year term ([7], [9]). In the Court’s view, the period was neither “plainly unreasonable nor unjust” in the circumstances. It noted in particular that the arson occurred within four months after Millen had been sentenced for the Commonwealth offence ([9]).

The judgment thus rests on the combination of the limited property loss, Millen’s criminal history, the sentencing judge’s consideration of his impairments, and the timing of the offending relative to the earlier sentence. The Court did not find that the applicant had established manifest excess. Its formal disposition was to refuse leave, rather than to vary the sentence ([10], [13]).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not present itself as changing the law of sentencing or establishing a new general rule. It applies existing arson-sentencing considerations cited from Cramond and Johnson: extent of property damage, fraud, and risk to others ([8]). It also records that the forensic psychologist referred to the principles in R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at [32] when assessing whether Millen’s mental condition might reduce moral culpability ([5]).

Care is needed about the role of Verdins in this judgment. Paragraph 5 describes the psychologist’s assessment and the purpose for which it was obtained. The appeal court’s express reasoning focuses on the sentencing judge’s treatment of cognitive deficits and the parole release date ([7], [9]). The judgment does not set out or independently develop the Verdins principles.

The Court’s treatment of post-sentence medication difficulties is also limited to the appeal ground before it. It says those matters concerned Millen’s experience in custody after sentence and were not relevant to his claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive ([9]). The decision should not be read as resolving how a different kind of application concerning prison treatment would be assessed. That question was not before the Court on the stated ground.

Before the decision, the judgment’s account of the sentencing approach was that cognitive impairment could reduce moral culpability, while the same background could coexist with a need to consider personal deterrence and community protection ([7]). After the decision, the judgment leaves that approach intact and applies it to Millen’s case. It does not announce a new test for manifest excess, recalibrate arson penalties, or set a general minimum period before parole release.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [8], the Court states that arson sentencing involves consideration of “the extent of the property damaged, whether there was fraud involved, and whether there was a risk to the safety of others”. In plain English, the court’s assessment is not confined to the fact that property was deliberately set on fire. It also considers how much was damaged, whether the offending involved fraud, and whether people were put at risk. The judgment cites Cramond and Johnson for this proposition.

At [8], the Court says that Millen’s offending involved only destruction of the complainant’s modest vehicle, but adds that his criminal history meant he had “no cause to complain about the head sentence”. In plain English, the comparatively limited property damage did not, in the Court’s view, make the two-year term excessive when considered alongside his history. The statement is tied to this case and does not prescribe a sentence for other vehicle-arson cases.

At [9], the Court explains that the medication complaints concerned Millen’s “experience in custody which post-dates his sentence”. In plain English, the Court distinguished between matters known or considered at sentencing and difficulties that arose later in prison. Because the asserted appeal ground concerned whether the sentence was excessive, the later custody complaint did not establish that ground.

At [9], the Court concludes that the requirement to serve one-quarter of the sentence in actual custody was “neither plainly unreasonable nor unjust”. In plain English, it rejected the claim that six months in custody before the fixed parole release date made the sentence manifestly excessive in these circumstances. The Court also noted that the sentencing judge had taken Millen’s mental health issues into account and that the offence occurred soon after a Commonwealth sentence ([9]).

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a sentence appeal where the appellant argues that an arson sentence is manifestly excessive, especially where the damage is confined to property and the judgment’s cited arson considerations are in issue. It shows that the Court considered damage, fraud, and risk to others, while also taking account of the offender’s criminal history ([8]). It does not establish that any one of those factors is determinative.

It may also be relevant where a sentence appeal challenges the actual custody period before a fixed parole release date and the sentencing judge has taken mental health or cognitive impairment into account. In Millen’s case, the Court considered the relationship between those impairments, the judge’s parole-release decision, the criminal history, and the timing of the offending after an earlier sentence ([7], [9]).

The decision is less directly informative where the appeal concerns a different ground, such as an alleged error in the sentencing process, a disputed factual finding, or a separate complaint about prison treatment. Millen’s medication complaint was addressed only as part of his manifest-excess ground and was treated as relating to post-sentence custody events ([9]). The judgment does not decide how a separate claim about access to treatment would be resolved.

The facts also matter. The vehicle had been left with Millen because he had offered to help with repairs, and he had threatened to burn it before doing so ([6]). The judgment records earlier threatening conduct and repeated offending, as well as impairment and health issues ([2]–[5]). A later case with materially different damage, risk, antecedents, mental health evidence, or sentencing orders cannot be assumed to have the same result merely because it also involves arson.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no later judicial consideration of R v Millen [2025] QCA 135. As a decision dated 29 July 2025, it cannot, on the material provided here, show how subsequent courts have applied, followed, distinguished, or criticised it. No later cases are identified in the judgment.

Within the judgment itself, the Court relies on R v Cramond [1999] QCA 11 and R v Johnson (2007) 173 A Crim R 94 at [8] for the arson-sentencing factors. It refers to R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at [32] in describing the psychologist’s assessment purpose ([5]). The decision therefore applies cited authorities to its own facts, but the text does not establish that those earlier cases adopted the outcome in Millen.

For professional research, the key distinction is between what this judgment says about the outcome in Millen’s particular sentence appeal and what it says about the earlier authorities. The Court refused leave on the circumstances before it. Whether later courts treat its observations as significant beyond those circumstances cannot be determined from this judgment alone.

Still-open questions

The judgment does not give a detailed valuation of the vehicle at the date of the fire or quantify the overall property loss. It records the purchase price and approximate time of purchase, then describes the vehicle as modest ([6], [8]). It also does not make a separate express finding about the extent of danger to people from this particular fire, although it identifies risk to others as a relevant arson-sentencing consideration ([8]).

The reasons do not explore in detail how the applicant’s cognitive impairment affected the precise choice to set the fire, beyond recounting the psychologist’s opinion and the sentencing judge’s acceptance that the deficits affected judgment and anger control ([5], [7]). Nor does the appeal judgment set out a general method for weighing impairment against deterrence or community protection. It reports that the sentencing judge considered both ([7]).

The judgment also does not determine whether or how medication problems arising after sentence could be raised through a different legal process. It decides only that they did not assist Millen’s stated ground of manifest excess because they concerned events after sentence ([9]). Any broader proposition would go beyond the reasons provided.

Finally, the text gives no account of later treatment of the decision. It therefore leaves open how later courts may apply its reasoning to other arson sentences, other periods of actual custody before parole release, or cases involving different combinations of criminal history and cognitive impairment.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.