Regina v Paul Lang - [2003] NSWCCA 68

CITATION: Regina v Paul LANG [2003] NSWCCA 68 revised - 4/04/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 21/03/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 16; Shaw J at 1

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - appeal - parity - co-offenders sentenced in Children's Court - appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606;
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 198 CLR 295;
R v AO [2003] NSWCCA 43;
R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432
R v Colgan [1999] NSWCCA 292;
R v Rushby [1999] NSWCCA 104;
R v Steel (Unreported, NSWCCA, 17 April 1997)
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109

PARTIES :
REGINA v PAUL LANG

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No 60170 of 2002

COUNSEL: Crown: R. Hulme, SC
App: Ms A. Francis

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: D.J. Humpreys

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/0279; 01/21/0314

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Nield DCJ

60170 of 2002

Studdert J
Shaw J
21 March 2003

Regina v Paul LANG

Judgment

1 Shaw J: In this case, his Honour Judge Nield sentenced the applicant to a an overall effective sentence of four years and six months with a non parole period of two years and three months for an offence of robbery and four other offences of robbery in company. For the first offence the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of one year, one month and two weeks commencing on 30 January 2002 and expiring on 14 March 2003. For each of the robbery in company charges the applicant received a head sentence of three years and nine months with a non parole period of eighteen months partly accumulated upon the first sentence. The first date the applicant is currently eligible for release on parole is 29 April 2004.

2 As the Crown submissions point out this sentence is ‘unremarkable’ and could not be seen as excessive.

3 However, the applicant submits that there is a disparity in the sentences imposed upon him in relation to more lenient sentences imposed upon his co-offenders in the Children’s Court. Those co-offenders were sentenced to control orders of 15 months with non parole periods of nine months.

4 The short question for this Court is whether the applicant could be said to suffer a justifiable sense of grievance at this disparity: Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 198 CLR 295.

5 However, the Crown points to a number of salient distinguishing features between the present applicant and the co-offenders that indicate that the offenders were not in the same position. In particular:

(a) the co-offenders were not charged with or sentenced for the robbery offence committed the week before the robbery in company offences;

(b) the applicant had a prior conviction, albeit for what was a minor offence (resist police), whereas the co-offenders had no previous convictions; and

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 Regina v Paul Lang

Details

AGLC: Regina v Paul LANG [2003] NSWCCA 68
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 68
Decision Date: 21 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Paul Lang, the appellant, Paul Lang, appealed against his sentence for a crime he committed while a minor. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Lang was convicted for his role in a serious criminal incident that occurred when he was under the age of 18. The original sentence was handed down by the Children's Court, and Lang sought to appeal the severity of his punishment, arguing that it was disproportionate when compared to the sentences of his co-offenders who were also sentenced in the Children's Court.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing in cases involving minors, and whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the sentences of co-offenders in similar circumstances. Lang's argument hinged on the concept of parity in sentencing, asserting that his punishment should reflect the sentences given to his co-offenders. The court had to consider the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the principles of juvenile justice and the specific facts of the case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Children's Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed. The decision underscored the importance of individualised sentencing in juvenile cases, taking into account the unique factors of each offence and the offender. The court rejected Lang's contention that his sentence was disproportionate in comparison to his co-offenders, affirming the original sentence as just and appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Children's Court was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the need for sentencing to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering the broader principles of juvenile justice.

Orders