R v Lange - [2007] SASC 359

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v LANGE
[2007] SASC 359
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Debelle and The Honourable Justice Nyland)
12 October 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence - guilty plea on charges of aggravated serious criminal trespass in place of residence, unlawful wounding, aggravated robbery, attempted murder - sentence imposed 17 years 6 months - non-parole period 12 years 6 months - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether Judge made insufficient allowance for appellant's mental condition - whether Judge gave undue weight to general deterrence.
Held: Appellant's compromised mental functioning did not call for significant reduction in weight given to principle of general deterrence - sentence at upper end of appropriate range - non-parole period not excessive - appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11, s 23, s 137, s 170, s 269G, s 269G.B, s 270A; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 18A, referred to.
Mason-Stuart v The Queen (1993) 61 SASR 204; R v Wiskich (2000) 207 LSJS 431, discussed.
R v Lange [2007] SASC 243, considered.

R v LANGE
[2007] SASC 359
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Debelle and Nyland JJ

DOYLE CJ: Mr Lange pleaded guilty to four charges. They are aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, contrary to s 170(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“the Act”); unlawful wounding, contrary to s 23 of the Act; aggravated robbery, contrary to s 137(2) of the Act, and attempted murder, contrary to s 11 and s 270A of the Act. The offences were committed on 2 May 2005. The Judge applied the law in force at that date.
The maximum penalty for the offence of unlawful wounding was imprisonment for five years. The maximum penalty for the other three offences was imprisonment for life.
Exercising the power conferred by s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), the Judge imposed a single sentence. He sentenced Mr Lange to imprisonment for 17 years and 6 months. But for the pleas of guilty he would have sentenced him to imprisonment for 19 years. The Judge fixed a non-parole period of 12 years and 6 months.
Permission to appeal against sentence was granted by a single Judge.
On appeal Ms David, counsel for Mr Lange, submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive. She submits that the Judge made insufficient allowance for Mr Lange’s mental condition at the time of the offences, and that the Judge gave undue weight to general deterrence in arriving at the sentence.
The plea of guilty
Initially Mr Lange pleaded not guilty to all offences, and elected for trial by judge alone. His mental competence to commit the offences was questioned. The Judge first tried the objective elements of the offence: s 269G of the…

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 R v Lange

Details

AGLC: R v Lange [2007] SASC 359
Case: [2007] SASC 359
Decision Date: 12 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Lange involved the appellant who had entered a guilty plea to multiple charges including aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, unlawful wounding, aggravated robbery, and attempted murder. The appellant was sentenced to 17 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years and 6 months. The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had made insufficient allowance for the appellant's mental condition. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the judge had given undue weight to the principle of general deterrence.

The court examined the principle of general deterrence and concluded that the appellant's compromised mental functioning did not significantly reduce the weight that should be given to this principle. The court held that the sentence was at the upper end of the appropriate range and that the non-parole period was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed because the court found no error in the judge’s approach to sentencing. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the appellant's mental condition with the broader societal need for deterrence.

The reasoning of the court was detailed and thorough, addressing each of the arguments presented by the appellant. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes committed. The judges were in unanimous agreement that the appeal should be dismissed, as the reasons provided by the trial judge were sound, and no manifest error in the sentencing was found. Consequently, the final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I have given the question of the non-parole period careful consideration, but I am not able to say that the Judge was wrong to take the approach that he did.Conclusion In my opinion the appeal must be dismissed. The Judge’s reasons do not disclose any error of approach. I am not persuaded that the head sentence or the non-parole period can be said to be manifestly excessive DEBELLE J:I agree with the substance of the reasons of Doyle CJ. I agree this appeal should be dismissed. NYLAND J: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons expressed by Doyle CJ.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.