Legal Research
Cases
KEES Langelaar v R

KEES Langelaar v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 143 22 July 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Kees Langelaar v R [2016] NSWCCA 143
Hearing dates: 29 April 2016
Decision date: 22 July 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Campbell J at [2]
N Adams J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against conviction.
(2) Dismiss the appeal against conviction.
(3) Refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – four counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 years – one count of indecent assault on child under 16 years - multiple grounds of appeal – whether ‘fresh evidence’ ought to be admitted on appeal - whether trial counsel incompetent – whether verdicts unreasonable – appeal dismissed
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – leave required – leave refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C(4), 61M(2), 319
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 293(3), 293(4), 293(6)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 128, 164
Cases Cited: Abou-Chabake v R [2004] NSWCCA 356; 149 A Crim R 417
Ahmu v R [2014] NSWCCA 312
Alkhair v R [2016] NSWCCA 4
Alramadan v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2007] NSWCCA 322
Carlton v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 244
Elwood v R [2016] NSWCCA 18
Gallagher v R (1986) 160 CLR 392
Krishna v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2007] NSWCCA 318; 178 A Crim R 220
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Mackenzie v R [1996] HCA 35; (1996) 190 CLR 348
Matthews v R [2013] NSWCCA 187
Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32; 198 CLR 1
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Mickelberg v R (1989) 167 CLR 259
Outram v R [2013] NSWCCA 329
Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; 80 ALJR 614
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
Ratten v R (1974) 131 CLR 510
Raumakita v R [2001] NSWCCA 126; 210 A Crim R 326
R v Bernthaler (NSWCCA, Kirby P, Badgery-Parker J, Ireland J, 17 December 1993, unreported)
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v M (1993) 67 A Crim R 549
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; (1987) 30 A Crim R 315
R v TK [2009] NSWCCA 151; 74 NSWLR 299
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124
Vella v R [2015] NSWCCA 148
Yacoub v R [2008] NSWCCA 164
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kees Langelaar (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/180574
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

Verdict: 31 May 2013
Sentence: 11 November 2013

Before:

Williams DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/180574

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with N Adams J.
CAMPBELL…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading KEES Langelaar v R

Details

AGLC: Langelaar v R [2016] NSWCCA 143
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 143
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, KEES Langelaar, was convicted on four counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child between the ages of 14 and 16 years, as well as one count of indecent assault on a child under 16 years. He appealed his conviction and sentence to the court, raising multiple grounds for the appeal. The appeal focused on whether fresh evidence should have been admitted, whether the trial counsel was incompetent, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, while the appeal against the sentence was refused as leave was required and not granted.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the admissibility of fresh evidence during an appeal, the competence of trial counsel, and the reasonableness of the verdicts. The court considered the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties. It examined whether the fresh evidence, which was not available at the time of the trial, was relevant and whether it could have influenced the outcome of the trial. The court also assessed the performance of the trial counsel and whether it fell below the required standard of competence. Additionally, the court evaluated the reasonableness of the verdicts, considering the evidence presented and the arguments made during the trial.

The court concluded that the fresh evidence was not admissible as it was not relevant to the issues at hand and would not have changed the outcome of the trial. The court found that the trial counsel had performed adequately and there was no incompetence that would warrant a new trial. The court also determined that the verdicts were reasonable, given the evidence presented and the arguments made during the trial. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against the sentence was refused as leave was required and not granted.

Orders