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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 breaking, entering and stealing in circumstances of aggravation, the circumstance of aggravation being that the offenders were in company with each other.

5. A short time later, the offenders went to a different business. This time it was a hair salon. Why they thought it was going to be worthwhile breaking into a hair salon is difficult to understand. When they broke in they got the princely sum of $22.25, as well as a number of items of equipment, which were obviously used in doing people’s hair: A hair straightener; electric clippers; a beard trimmer; and three trimmer chargers.

6. The offenders were arrested after a vehicle fitting the description of one which had been noticed leaving the newsagency, was spotted. There was a chase. The vehicle eventually stopped and the offenders ran away. Two, both of them under the age of 18, were located as were the proceeds of the two offences.

7. One of the young persons admitted to the offences and, after being required to answer who was in the vehicle with him, he nominated a number of others, including this offender, Brendan Langford. A few days later, the following day, police obtained a statement from the offender’s father, stating that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and on 22 July he had given permission for the offender to lend the car and for one of the young people to drive it.

8. Some considerable time later, the offender and his father went to the police station. Court Attendance Notices were then issued for the two offences.

9. The offender pleaded guilty to these offences and so the sentences I impose upon him will be 25% less than they would otherwise have been.

10. These are serious crimes. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of five years. I have taken into account both the maximum penalties and the standard non-parole period in these remarks on sentence. My reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period appear in these remarks on sentence.

11. I mentioned before that there is a 25% discount for pleading guilty. This is not necessarily a strictly numerical exercise. Pleas of guilty can be a factor which is taken into account in deciding to impose a different form of sentence from that I would otherwise have imposed, that is the case in the present matter.

12. The offender was fostered by his parents and they adopted him a little while later. He has two siblings, an older adopted sister and a younger adopted brother. His home life was a happy one, with one qualification. His relationship with his mother was less than ideal and he and his older sister share less in common than Mr Langford would hope. He has no criminal history whatsoever.

13. As he grew up he exhibited symptoms consistent with him suffering from ADHD. It is well known that such a condition causes problems of impulsivity and so many people suffering from the condition find themselves breaching the criminal law when they make decisions, impulsively of course, which they would not have made had they had more time to reflect upon what they were doing.

14. So the ADHD and the difficulties in a relationship with some of his family members presented him with challenges as he grew up. He commenced drinking more than was wise and used drugs on occasions. He began mixing with people, people like his co-offenders who, it has been suggested, were negative influences upon him. It is always difficult to know precisely who is the negative influence when there are a group of people committing offences. I have little doubt that, when sentencing submissions were made on behalf of Mr Langford’s co-offenders, he was said to be a negative influence. In truth, there is no way for me to know whether Mr Langford was mixing with the wrong crowd or whether he was in fact part of the wrong crowd that others were mixing with.

15. Since committing these offences, there has been some improvement in Mr Langford’s attitudes. The delay between when these offences were committed and today, a subject to which I will return, has allowed him to demonstrate progress towards rehabilitation. He has moved back home to come under more of an influence from his father. He is receiving counselling and perhaps most importantly of all, he has got a job. It was submitted that at the time of the offences he had lost his way, but things are now improving.

16. These offences are of course, serious. The fact that there is a standard non-parole period suggest that ordinarily they would be dealt with by the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. Parliament has chosen those offences which are given standard non-parole periods, as a means of attempting to ensure that significant punishment is inflicted on those who commit such offences. I am not going to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon the offender, but this is the one opportunity that the offender will have to receive such a lenient sentence. Any further offending, especially offending as serious as this, will see him go to gaol.

17. I am not going to impose a sentence of imprisonment, because of the objective features of the offending and his subjective features. I note that these were business premises which were broken into, not residences. That is not to underestimate their seriousness, but it is to observe that these offences would have been more serious, had people’s homes been broken into. The offender has no prior convictions. He has been subject to bail for some time, as part of which he had to obey a fairly stringent curfew, which has had some impacts on his ability to enjoy his life as much as he would want to.

18. On the question of remorse, the psychological report tendered on his behalf noted that what Mr Langford said tended to be rather self-focussed. He later wrote a letter, or at least signed a letter, in which there is evidence of remorse, but he did not give sworn evidence. He did not even give evidence that the words in the letter were his. It is easy for others, well-meaning perhaps, to have suggested what should be in such a letter.

19. I was asked to take into account which has occurred between these offences and today, when Mr Langford is to be sentenced for them. I was told that he had his life put on hold. I suppose that is true, to some extent, but I cannot help but observe that the reason he was only charged 12 months after the offence, is that he did not go to the police for that period, after knowing that he was involved in these offences and after knowing that police at least suspected his involvement in them.

20. Quite clearly, the offender needs to be punished. I am not satisfied that, as I have said, that we have reached the stage where a sentence of imprisonment is required, but nevertheless, there needs to be some significant effect upon him in an effort to bring home to him the serious consequences of breaching the law as he has done.

21. For each offence the offender is convicted. I order that he perform 250 hours community service. Those orders to be served consecutively so that the total number of hours of community service, which Mr Langford must perform, is 500 hours. He is to report to the Lake Macquarie Community Corrections Office within five days of today, in order to commence serving his sentence.

**********

Decision last updated: 07 March 2017