R v Langier - [2019] NSWDC 412

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Langier [2019] NSWDC 412
Hearing dates: 11 June 2019
Date of orders: 14 June 2019
Decision date: 14 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bright DCJ
Decision:
Robbery armed with an offensive weapon – convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of two years and two months to date from 27 April 2018 and expire on 26 June 2020. The total term of imprisonment is three years and four months which will expire on 26 August 2021.
Carry Cutting weapon – convicted and ordered to comply with a Community Corrections Order for a period of 12 months pursuant to s 8 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to commence today on the standard conditions.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – robbery with an offensive weapon – mental health issues – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP Commonwealth v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 94
R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Douglass Cori Langier (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Hennessey (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms N Rowe (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00133552

SENTENCE

Douglass Cori Langier, 27 years old, appears for sentence in relation to one offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(2), Crimes Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is no prescribed standard non-parole period.
The offender is also being sentenced for one offence on a s 166 certificate of carry cutting weapon, an offence pursuant to s 547D, Crimes Act. The maximum prescribed penalty for that offence is six months imprisonment and/or a fine of $550.
The offender pleaded guilty on 2 October 2018 at the Wyong Local Court. Having regard to the timing of the plea, I propose to allow a discount on sentence of 25%.
The offender has been in custody bail refused since his arrest on 27 April‑‑
OFFENDER: I’m smacked as well which means I’m in protection.
MANOOKIAN: I think he is just telling your Honour about his protection status in custody.
OFFENDER: Yes I’m saying I’m smacked, I’m in protection custody as well. Do I get time off for that or?
HER HONOUR: Mr Langier, you can’t keep interrupting my reasons unless you can’t see me or hear me.
OFFENDER: Okay, sorry. Sorry.
HER HONOUR: Do you understand that?
OFFENDER: Yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah sorry.
HER HONOUR: The offender has been in custody bail refused since his arrest on 27 April 2018. Accordingly, the sentence imposed today will be backdated to that date.

Agreed Facts

At approximately 2pm on 24 April 2018, 72 year old Gary Allan, (the ‘victim’), started his shift as a taxi drive for Central Coast Taxis. After completing a job nearby, the victim pulled into the taxi rank outside of Wyong train station. The victim saw the offender walk towards the taxi and open the passenger front-side door, wearing an orange and blue hoodie…

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 Langier

Details

AGLC: R v Langier [2019] NSWDC 412
Case: [2019] NSWDC 412
Decision Date: 14 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Langier, was convicted of robbery armed with an offensive weapon and the use of a carry cutting weapon. The case was heard and determined in the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes, with particular attention to his mental health issues and other special circumstances. The prosecution sought a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crimes, while the defence argued for a more lenient sentence, considering the appellant's mental health and other mitigating factors.

The court was required to balance several competing considerations in determining the sentence. These included the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence and denunciation, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the impact of the appellant's mental health issues on his culpability and the likelihood of reoffending. The legal principles guiding the court's decision-making process included the need to impose a sentence that was proportionate to the offence, and to ensure that the sentence served the broader purposes of punishment, including retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the appellant's crimes, but also recognised the impact of his mental health issues and other mitigating factors. The court found that the appellant's mental health issues did not excuse his criminal conduct, but did warrant a degree of leniency in sentencing. The court ultimately determined that a non-parole period of two years and two months, followed by a total term of imprisonment of three years and four months, was an appropriate sentence. The court also ordered the appellant to comply with a Community Corrections Order for a period of 12 months. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all the relevant factors, and a balanced approach to the competing objectives of sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Robbery armed with an offensive weapon – convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of two years and two months to date from 27 April 2018 and expire on 26 June 2020. The total term of imprisonment is three years and four months which will expire on 26 August 2021.

Carry Cutting weapon – convicted and ordered to comply with a Community Corrections Order for a period of 12 months pursuant to s 8 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to commence today on the standard conditions.

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 Langier [2019] NSWDC 412
Hearing dates:	11 June 2019
Date of orders:	14 June 2019
Decision date:	14 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bright DCJ
Decision:	Robbery armed with an offensive weapon – convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of two years and two months to date from 27 April 2018 and expire on 26 June 2020. The total term of imprisonment is three years and four months which will expire on 26 August 2021. Carry Cutting weapon – convicted and ordered to comply with a Community Corrections Order for a period of 12 months pursuant to s 8 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act to commence today on the standard conditions.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – robbery with an offensive weapon – mental health issues – special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP Commonwealth v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 94 R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Douglass Cori Langier (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Hennessey (Offender) Solicitors: Ms N Rowe (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00133552