Case Title:	R v Loulanting
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 172
Hearing Date(s):	16 June 2015
DecisionDate:	23 June 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. For the offence of attempted robbery on 7 April 2006, the conviction for which was confirmed on 28 November 2014, James Conrad Loulanting be sentenced to two years imprisonment, to commence on 8 December 2014, to take into account pre-sentence custody. 2. James Conrad Loulanting be convicted of contravening a Protection Order on 18 January 2015 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 18 June 2016; that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the first sentence. 3. James Conrad Loulanting be convicted of threatening to kill the victim on 19 January 2015 and sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, to commence on 8 June 2016, to be cumulative as to 18 months on the sentence for the first contravention of the Protection Order. 4. James Conrad Loulanting be convicted of contravening a Protection Order on 19 January 2015 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 8 June 2016; that is, to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the offence of threatening to kill the victim. 5. A non parole period of two years and two months be set, to commence on 8 December 2014 and to end on 7 February 2017.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Sentence – Threat to kill – Breach of Protection Order – Family violence – Contravention of a Good Behaviour Order through further offending – Extensive criminal history – Use of methylamphetamines – Previous opportunities for reform – Denunciation – General deterrence CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction – Transfer of offences from the Magistrates Court – Back up offences – Related offences – Statutory interpretation – Ordinary or grammatical sense of the words modified to avoid absurdity
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 49 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 30 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 33(1) Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT), s 90(2) Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 190 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90A (7) (8) and (12), 90B (1)(a), 92A, 94 Supreme Court 1933 (ACT), s 68CA, Pt 8
Cases Cited:	Auld v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 21 Director of Public Prosecutions v Grabovac [1998] 1 VR 664 Footscray City College v Ruzicka (2007) 16 VR 498 Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61 Guy v Telford [2013] ACTSC 5 Oliver (1982) 7 A Crim R 174 PR v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 40 R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 374 R v BB [2013] ACTSC 290 R v Hally [1965] Qd R 582 R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v Loulanting (Unreported, ACT Supreme Court, Crispin J, SCC 153 of 2006, 16 April 2007) R v Loulanting [2014] ACTSC 392 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 R v Todd Elphick…

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 Loulanting

Details

AGLC: R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172
Case: [2015] ACTSC 172
Decision Date: 23 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Conrad Loulanting was convicted of multiple serious offences, including threatening to kill, contravening a Protection Order, and attempted robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court needed to determine appropriate sentences for the multiple offences and set a non-parole period. The court's reasoning focused on the extensive criminal history of Loulanting, his drug use, and the need for denunciation and general deterrence. Loulanting's criminal history and the severity of the current offences were critical in the sentencing decision. The court also considered the nature of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The court held that Loulanting's criminal history, which included multiple opportunities for reform, warranted a severe sentence. The threats to kill and breaches of a Protection Order were particularly concerning, given the context of family violence. The court also noted the impact of methylamphetamine use on Loulanting's offending. The need for denunciation and general deterrence was emphasised as key factors in the sentencing. The court's decision reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the importance of holding Loulanting accountable.

The court sentenced Loulanting to a total of three years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and two months. The sentences for the various offences were set to run cumulatively, ensuring that Loulanting would serve a significant period in custody. The court's decision was based on the gravity of the offences, Loulanting's criminal history, and the need to protect the community. The final orders included specific sentences for each offence and the setting of a non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. For the offence of attempted robbery on 7 April 2006, the conviction for which was confirmed on 28 November 2014, James Conrad Loulanting be sentenced to two years imprisonment, to commence on 8 December 2014, to take into account pre-sentence custody.

2. James Conrad Loulanting be convicted of contravening a Protection Order on 18 January 2015 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 18 June 2016; that is, to be cumulative as to six months on the first sentence.

3. James Conrad Loulanting be convicted of threatening to kill the victim on 19 January 2015 and sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, to commence on 8 June 2016, to be cumulative as to 18 months on the sentence for the first contravention of the Protection Order.

4. James Conrad Loulanting be convicted of contravening a Protection Order on 19 January 2015 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to commence on 8 June 2016; that is, to be wholly concurrent with the sentence for the offence of threatening to kill the victim.

5. A non parole period of two years and two months be set, to commence on 8 December 2014 and to end on 7 February 2017.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172

Most Recent Citation

Brett Alchin v Deborah Maree McInerney [2015] ACTSC 300

Cases citing this decision · 18 of 18 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Brymer
[2025] ACTSC 430

…0] NSWCCA 69 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Kirkwood [2022] ACTSC 148 R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351 R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 25 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v Michalopoulos [2020] ACTSC 27 R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; 279 A Crim R 232 R v NX (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 131 R v Pe…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hogan
[2024] ACTSC 245

…9] ACTSC 286 R v Hagen [2022] ACTSC 362 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWR 346 R v Hoang [2020] ACTSC 262 R v KAS [2021] ACTSC 109 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (No 2)
[2024] ACTSC 126

…Gordon [2018] ACTSC 94 R v Hall; R v Barker [2016] ACTSC 11 R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Lovelock [2020] ACTSC 376 R v McFarlane (1993) Tas R 201 R v McHughes (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 344 R v Parker [2018] ACTSC 55 R v Po’oi [2021] ACTSC 1…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny
[2024] ACTCA 4

…R v Kirkwood [2022] ACTSC 148 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Rand
[2023] ACTSC 408

…5 R v Fredes [2020] NSWSC 1332 R v Campbell (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 240 R v Day (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 352 R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Rogers [2021] ACTSC 355 R v Tresize (Unreported, ACT Supreme Court, 7 September 2012, Nield AJ)…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny
[2023] ACTSC 286

…v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179 R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52 R v John [2017] ACTSC 144 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Lyons (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 358 R v Markarian [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 R v McLaughlin [2015] ACTSC 201 R v Pahl (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 155 R v Pears…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Connors (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 280 Para 1

…Counsel for the prosecution also referred me to R v Randall Williams [2016] ACTSC 389 and R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172. In both cases the offenders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment for various charges, including having made threats to kill within a family violence context. In both cases the starting point…
Mammoliti v Callaghan
[2022] ACTSC 259 Para 1

…other ways by which grandparents can obtain access to the grandchildren they love, such as through applying for a parenting order.In R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172, a similar reason was given for breaching a protection order made under earlier legislation. Refshauge J stated at [40]:…
R v Subasic
[2022] ACTSC 380 Para 17

…As explained in R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [15]–[23], a breach of bail constituted by a failure to appear in a court in accordance with the bail undertaking is not a backup offence or a related offence. See also R v McMahon (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 299 at [13]–[25]. The plea for legislative reform there made has…
R v Bonfield
[2021] ACTSC 362 Para 1

…In R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [21]–[22], it was held that a breach of bail during proceedings in the Magistrates Court involving the indictable offences, subsequently the subject of Mr Loulanting's committal, was not a related offence. A recommendation for amendment to what appears an unfortunate lacuna (se…
R v Kelly
[2021] ACTSC 143

…99] HCA 9; 198 CLR 334 Dunstan v The Queen [2003] ACTCA 22 Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293 R v Kelly [2018] ACTSC 160 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 R v Mico [2010] ACTSC 64 R v Pelecky [2020] ACTSC 246…
R v Slattery
[2021] ACTSC 154 Para 1

…t, on this occasion, has been achieved by Mr Slattery is to be given weight in the sentence: see R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 at [53]; R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [38]. It must not, of course, overwhelm other purposes of punishment, but it is an important matter that I am required to statutorily consider.…
R v Pearson
[2020] ACTSC 375 Para 1

…rried out, is an offence under s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and attracts a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. As noted in R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [37], the surrounding circumstances are very relevant to the seriousness of such an offence.…
R v Tonna (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 360 Para 1

…nd point to the appropriateness of the relevance in this case of giving weight to rehabilitation (see R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333 and R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [38]).…
MZ v The Queen
[2020] ACTCA 41 Para 1

…s 90A(7) following a plea of guilty to an indictable offence, i.e. where a person has been committed for sentence. The appellant cited R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [16]-[20]. Consequently, any purported transfer under s 90B was invalid. In the absence of a valid transfer, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction…
R v McMahon (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 299 Para 1

…I have previously addressed that issue in R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 at [22], where I held that, in somewhat similar circumstances to those pertaining here, a failure to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking made in connection with a Deferred Sentence Order was not a related offence to the indictable of…
Degioannis v Boxx
[2017] ACTSC 7

…Law v Ilievski [2016] ACTSC 291 R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172 Zradkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53…
Brett Alchin v Deborah Maree McInerney
[2015] ACTSC 300 Para 1

…I found assistance in the relatively recent decision of R v Loulanting [2015] ACTSC 172. It is instructive to set out the facts in that case for they bear a similarity to the present case.…

View all 18 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

Sabra v R
[2015] NSWCCA 38 Para 1

…g for that offence and today. See, for example, R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-20; PR v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 40 at [27]-[46]; Sabra v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 38 at [38].…
R v Elphick (No 2)
[2015] ACTSC 23 Para 1

…r, are also serious offences, though the maximum penalty shows them to be less serious than the offence of threat to kill. In R v Todd Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23 at [59], I explained:…
R v Barker
[2014] ACTSC 374 Para 1

…Court Act have, however, given this Court jurisdiction to hear and determine certain summary offences. I described those provisions in the R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 374 at [78] as "a welcome reform".…
R v Conrad James Loulanting
[2014] ACTSC 392 Para 1

…While suspended sentences can have value as a sentencing option (see R v Loulanting [2014] ACTSC 392 ( Loulanting 2014 )) breaches of the Good Behaviour Order made when the sentence of imprisonment is suspended need to be treated seriously ( Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [99]-[101]), especially if those breaches a…
PR v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 40 Para 1

…ring the interval between the original sentencing for that offence and today. See, for example, R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-20; PR v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 40 at [27]-[46]; Sabra v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 38 at [38].…
Roberts v Smorhun
[2013] ACTSC 218 Para 120

…d and this needs to be respected. Further, such orders are normally made in the context of family violence and, as I pointed out in Roberts v Smorhun [2013] ACTSC 218 at [120]-[122], this is this is a serious problem which the integrity of the Domestic Violence Order system can help to address.…
R v BB
[2013] ACTSC 290 Para 1

…need to be treated seriously ( Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [99]-[101]), especially if those breaches are constituted by further offending ( R v BB [2013] ACTSC 290 at [50]).…
Auld v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 21 Para 1

…committed while Mr Loulanting was on conditional liberty, which also aggravates the seriousness of this and the other offences. See Auld v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 21 at [9]. In my view, it was a serious offence. It was put to me that I should take into account that it was engendered by the use of ice and this is n…
Guy v Anderson
[2013] ACTSC 5 Para 1

…nity without committing further crime. While I accept that there is not a presumption in favour of imposing the sentence suspended (see Guy v Telford [2013] ACTSC 5 at [83]-[87]), there seems to me little option in this case, but to do so, though moderated for reasons that I will refer to below.…
Saga v Reid
[2010] ACTSC 59 Para 1

…oulanting 2014 )) breaches of the Good Behaviour Order made when the sentence of imprisonment is suspended need to be treated seriously ( Saga v Reid [2010] ACTSC 59 at [99]-[101]), especially if those breaches are constituted by further offending ( R v BB [2013] ACTSC 290 at [50]).…
Footscray City College v Ruzicka
[2007] VSCA 136 Para 1

…ords may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity. Such an approach has been approved more recently, for example, in Footscray City College v Ruzicka (2007) 16 VR 498 at 505.…
R v Verdins
[2007] VSCA 102 Para 1

…account his mental health, though it does not seem to me to attract, in a significant way, any of the principles set out in cases such as R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at 276; [32]. I assess the seriousness of the offences as I have referred to earlier. That they were committed in the context of family violence requ…
R v Harris
[2007] NSWCCA 130 Para 1

…On the other hand, I must be careful to note that, as pointed out in R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130 at [46], an offender's criminality is greater by reason of committing more offences rather than fewer and that the impression should not be left that an offender is not being effectively punished for offences beyond the…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 1

…confined span of time may be sufficient to permit the presumption of concurrency to continue ( Director of Public Prosecutions v Grabovac [1998] 1 VR 664). This does apply to some extent.…
Grey v Pearson
10 ER 1216 Para 1

…there is no committal for trial under s 90A (7) but only a committal for sentence. There is authority, such as Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61 at 106; 10 ER 1216 at 1234, that where the ordinary or grammatical sense of words would lead to an absurdity the grammatical or ordinary sense of the words may be modif…

Legislation cited in this decision · 7

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
90A, 90B, 92A, 94 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
33(1), 7 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
49 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
30 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT)
90(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)
190 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)