R v Langi (No 2) - [2021] ACTSC 239

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Langi (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 239
Hearing Date:	3 September 2021
Decision Date:	15 September 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [56]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aggravated burglary – upper mid-range of objective seriousness – arson with intent to endanger life – mid-range of objective
seriousness – found guilty at trial by jury – where association with
an outlaw motorcycle gang was a motivating factor for the
offending – limited criminal history – guarded prospects of
rehabilitation due to ongoing association with outlaw motorcycle
gang – reparation order – sentences of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 117 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 11, 33(1)(k) 35, 35A, 36, 37 Crimes (Sentencing) Amendment Bill 2013 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 312
Cases Cited:	R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371; 316 FLR 49 R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273 R v Sharp [2019] ACTSC 175 R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24 RP v R [2015] NSWCCA 215; 90 NSWLR 234
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Aofangatukau Langi (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
A Williamson (Crown) T Taylor (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hugo Law Group (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 142 of 2020
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1.       On 22 April 2021, at the conclusion of a 9-day trial, a jury found the offender, Aofangatukau Langi, guilty of the following counts:

(a) Count 1: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT); and
(b) Count 2: arson with intent to endanger life, contrary to s 117(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
2. Both counts were offences of joint commission with unnamed “others”, by virtue of s 45A
of the Criminal Code.
3.       The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is a fine of $320,000, 20 years’
imprisonment or both. The maximum penalty for arson with intent to endanger life is
25 years’ imprisonment.
4.       At the commencement of the joint trial, the offender’s co-accused, Christopher Millington,
pleaded guilty to a joint commission charge of aggravated burglary. At the end of the trial, the jury found him guilty of arson with intent to endanger life and discharging a loaded arm so as to cause reasonable apprehension for safety, as well as a charge of attempting to destroy or conceal evidence.

Facts

On 21 November 2019 at approximately 10:45pm three or four intruders, including Mr Langi and Mr Millington approached the house where Alexander Miller lived in Kambah. Both Mr Miller and his partner, Natasha Rayner, were at home at the time and the front door was locked. The intruders kicked in the front door. At least one of them had a handgun. Mr Miller and Ms Rayner went into the bathroom. Ms Rayner lay down in the bathtub. As Mr Miller and Ms Rayner hid in the bathroom, the front…

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 Langi (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Langi (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 239
Case: [2021] ACTSC 239
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Aofangatukau Langi was convicted of aggravated burglary and arson with intent to endanger life. The court found that the aggravated burglary was at the upper end of the mid-range of objective seriousness and the arson was in the mid-range of objective seriousness. The offender's association with the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang was a motivating factor for the offending and he was a senior figure within the ACT Chapter at the time of the offending. The offender had a limited criminal history but his ongoing association with the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang indicated that he was a person of bad character and had guarded prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered the subjective circumstances of the offender, including his age, background, employment history, and criminal history. The court also considered the assistance provided by the offender in the administration of justice and granted a modest reduction in sentence. The court took into account the relevant sentencing principles, including general and specific deterrence, community protection, and rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for five years and nine months on the charge of arson with intent to endanger life and a sentence of imprisonment for four years and nine months on the charge of aggravated burglary. The sentences were cumulative as to 18 months but otherwise concurrent, giving a head sentence of seven years and three months. The non-parole period was set at four years and two months to maximise the incentives for the offender to cut ties with the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang. The court also ordered the offender to make reparation to the insurer of the owner of the premises that were burnt in the amount of $25,834.18.

Orders