R v Langford - [2015] NSWDC 420

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Langford [2015] NSWDC 420
Hearing dates: 30 July 2015
Date of orders: 30 July 2015
Decision date: 30 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
For each offence the offender is ordered to perform 250 hours of community service. The orders are to be served consecutively so that the total number of hours the offender must perform is 500 hours.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Break enter and steal - Aggravation
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Brendan Langford
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms E McLaughlin - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown
Legal Aid Commission - Offender

File Number(s): 2014/239164

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The criminal law draws a sharp distinction between those who are under 18 and those who are over 18. When sentencing those under 18, judges and magistrates are required to give full effect to s 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. When sentencing those over 18, different principles apply. For that reason, when two offenders who commit offences of similar criminality and who have similar subjective features, vary in age by only a small amount, one being under 18 and one being over 18, often different sentences are imposed. That is because different sentencing principles apply to each offender. No doubt, the one who receives the more severe sentence, the one over 18, thinks that this is unfair. But in truth, it is not. It is simply judicial officers giving effect to the sentencing principles which parliament has laid down for them.
In this case, Brendan Langford, is the one over 18 and his three co-offenders dealt with in the Children’s Court are the ones under 18. They were all dealt with leniently, consistent with the principles under s 6. When I come to sentence Mr Langford, Ms McLaughlin, who appears for him, seeks to rely on the principles of parity.
Those principles are of course important to be borne in mind. It used to be the law that the principles rarely arose when one offender was an adult and the other a child. But it is appropriate to have regard to the sentences imposed in the Children’s Court, on Mr Langford’s co-offenders. He may have a grievance if his sentence is significantly longer than that of his co-offenders, but given the different sentencing principles which apply, that grievance would not be justified.
Mr Langford, who was 18 at the time, met up with a number of other people in the early hours of 24 July 2013. They were travelling in a motor vehicle registered to Mr Langford’s father. They all went to a newsagency at Whitebridge, where one of them, it does not matter who, used a sledgehammer to smash the glass entry door to the newsagency. All of the offenders then went inside and took about 320 packets of cigarettes, some cigarette filters and boxes of matches, before driving away. That represents an offence of…

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 Langford

Details

AGLC: R v Langford [2015] NSWDC 420
Case: [2015] NSWDC 420
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Langford involved a criminal appeal against sentence, where the appellant, Langford, contested the severity of the sentence imposed for breaking and entering and stealing. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence given by the lower court. The primary issue before the court was whether the original sentencing judge had correctly exercised their discretion in determining the penalty for the appellant's offences. Specifically, the court needed to consider if the sentence was excessive and whether the aggravating factors relied upon by the sentencing judge were appropriate and sufficient to justify the imposed penalty.

The court examined the nature of the offences, which included breaking and entering a dwelling and stealing property. It considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the severity of the sentence and the applicability of the aggravating factors. The court noted that while the offences were serious, the appellant had no prior convictions and had shown remorse. The court further analysed the aggravating factors, such as the appellant's use of a weapon and the timing of the offences, to determine if they warranted a harsher sentence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the original sentence was too severe and did not appropriately reflect the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's background and the mitigating factors present.

The court found that a sentence involving community service would be more appropriate and proportionate to the offences committed. The Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant must perform 250 hours of community service for each offence, to be served consecutively, resulting in a total of 500 hours. This decision reflects a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's personal circumstances. The final orders of the court mandate that the appellant undertake the specified community service as part of their sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

For each offence the offender is ordered to perform 250 hours of community service. The orders are to be served consecutively so that the total number of hours the offender must perform is 500 hours.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Langford [2015] NSWDC 420
Hearing dates:	30 July 2015
Date of orders:	30 July 2015
Decision date:	30 July 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	For each offence the offender is ordered to perform 250 hours of community service. The orders are to be served consecutively so that the total number of hours the offender must perform is 500 hours.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Break enter and steal - Aggravation
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Brendan Langford
Representation:	Counsel: Ms E McLaughlin - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Legal Aid Commission - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/239164