Langdon v Kelemete-Leoli-McLean

In Langdon v Kelemete-Leoli-McLean, the appellant, Langdon, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Langdon appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The respondent, Kelemete-Leoli-McLean, argued that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the appellant's criminal history.

The court considered whether the consequence of grievous bodily harm could be taken into account when sentencing for assault occasioning bodily harm, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that the consequence of grievous bodily harm could be taken into account, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence warranted a sentence of imprisonment, and that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentence was unjust or disproportionate to the offence committed. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate, and that the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence warranted a sentence of imprisonment. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.