R v Langley - [2016] NZHC 2791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-000611 [2016] NZHC 2791

THE QUEEN

v

PAORA CRAIG LANGLEY

Hearing: 18 November 2016

Appearances:

D McWilliam for the Crown
P J Morgan QC and M Jepson for the Defendant

Sentence:

18 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors: Almao Douch, Hamilton Philip Morgan QC, Hamilton

R v PAORA CRAIG LANGLEY [2016] NZHC 2791 [18 November 2016]

[1] Paora Langley, you appear for sentencing after having been found guilty of manslaughter at a re-trial for murder.

[2] The victim, Mr Tiatia, was your partner’s step-father.

Facts

[3] You were aged 19. You and your partner had just welcomed the birth of your first child. Together, you were living with your mother-in-law and your partner’s three siblings. The two younger siblings were the biological children of Mr Tiatia.

[4] You saw yourself as the provider and protector of your family, and your

partner’s family.

[5] You were always respectful to Mr Tiatia. He had been violent towards your mother-in-law. You and your partner helped him to see the younger children, which led to Mr Tiatia being permitted by your mother-in-law to come to the house, though that was in breach of a Court order.

[6] Mr Tiatia largely ignored you. He called you a “nark” and a “sissy” and talked down to you. You were still upset about him taking birthday money which you had given to your partner on her 16th birthday, two years prior.

[7] On the day of the offending, 4 February 2014, you had been talking about adopting the neighbour’s dog and Mr Tiatia scoffed at you for that. The issue of the birthday money had come up again. You were riled about this and angry that your partner said nothing to support you.

[8] You went to the bedroom upstairs and told your partner you were going to stab Mr Tiatia. She did not believe you. You then got your diving knife and went downstairs, calling out Mr Tiatia’s first name twice. He was still in the lounge, where you had been talking just beforehand.

[9] You stabbed him twice in the chest area. Mr Tiatia’s step-daughter, who was aged 12 at the time, returned from the bathroom to see him holding onto the couch

with one hand and trying to cover a wound with the other. He then fell to the floor, landing on top of a vacuum cleaner.

[10] One of the wounds was 9-11 centimetres deep. Mr Tiatia bled profusely, and died at the scene.

[11] You fled the scene, going first to the house where your partner’s mother was visiting her sister, and telling her what had happened. You rang your partner and had a conversation with her, which was recorded, as the Police had her phone under surveillance. You surrendered to the Police the following day.

Pre-sentence report

[12] Before me is a pre-sentence report, which states you are genuinely remorseful. You describe a sense of disbelief at your own violent…

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 Langley

Details

AGLC: R v Langley [2016] NZHC 2791
Case: [2016] NZHC 2791
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paora Craig Langley was sentenced by Hinton J after being found guilty of manslaughter at a re-trial for murder. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Langley, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the interests of the victims, and the mitigating factors presented. The Crown argued for a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, citing extreme violence, premeditation, serious injury, use of a weapon, and vulnerability of the victim as aggravating factors. However, the court found that the violence was not extreme and that there was no premeditation. The court decided on a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, considering the nature and extent of the offending and the relevant case law. The court then adjusted the starting point by taking into account Langley's previous convictions, time spent on electronic monitoring bail, genuine remorse, motivation to reform, and age at the time of offending. The final sentence was five years and six months' imprisonment, with no minimum period of imprisonment imposed.

The court also considered the victim impact statements, which highlighted the grief and suffering experienced by the victim's family and friends. Hinton J emphasised the need to hold Langley accountable for his actions, promote a sense of responsibility, denounce and deter his conduct, protect the community, and assist in his rehabilitation. The court took into account the principles and purposes of sentencing, the gravity of the offending, and the need for consistency with comparable cases. The court also considered the aggravating and mitigating factors that were personal to Langley, such as his previous convictions, time spent on electronic monitoring bail, and his participation in restorative justice. The court found that Langley's remorse was genuine and that he was motivated to reform. However, the court did not give credit for the restorative justice process as not all members of the victim's family agreed to participate. The court also did not give credit for Langley's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter as it found that he did not offer to plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity and had put all the witnesses and victims through the first trial where he falsely argued self-defence. The court found that Langley's age and attitude, as well as the fact that the offence was not premeditated, were mitigating factors that justified not imposing a minimum period of imprisonment.

Orders