R v Langman - [2018] NZHC 2670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI 2017-088-931

[2018] NZHC 2670

THE QUEEN

v

LANCE LANGMAN

Hearing: 12 October 2018

Appearances:

M B Smith for Crown

A Dooney for Defendant

Sentenced:

12 October 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei Bank Street Chambers, Whangarei

R v LANGMAN [2018] NZHC 2670 [12 October 2018]

[1] Lance Langman, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of exploitative sexual connection with a person with a significant impairment and one charge of attempting to have exploitative sexual connection with a person with a significant impairment. Each of those charges carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.1

[2] The Crown has sought leave, which I grant, to withdraw a third representative charge of exploitative sexual connection.

[3] On the remaining charges, the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention in terms of s 87 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The main question for this Court today is whether you should be sentenced to a substantial finite sentence or a sentence of preventive detention. Before addressing the issue of preventive detention, I must decide what finite sentence I would impose based on the facts of your offending and on features personal to you.

Facts of alleged offending

[4] Your victim was a 76-year old woman who is diagnosed with a significant mental impairment. She was living independently in a unit that was overseen by her special needs provider. You have known the victim and her family for about 30 years.

[5] Between 1 July 2016 and 11 August 2016, you visited the victim’s address on a number of occasions. On one occasion, you confirmed with her that she was alone and asked if she wanted to have some fun. She replied that she did and followed you to the bedroom. You removed your pants and underwear and encouraged her to do the same. She removed her lower garments. The victim got on to her bed and you and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse until she said she was hurting and told you to stop. You stopped, got dressed, and left the address.

[6] On another occasion, you visited the address and also said to the victim you could go and have some fun. In the bedroom, you removed your pants and underwear.

1 Crimes Act 1965, ss 138(1) and 138(2).

She also removed her lower garments and sat on the bed. She then said she didn’t want any more. You put your clothes back on and left.

Victim impact

[7] I have read the victim impact statements from the victim and her niece who cares for her. The victim says she feels horrible and disgusted by what you have done to her. She could no longer enjoy or feel safe in her home and has moved to a new, less independent, residence which has been difficult for her. Her niece records how your offending…

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 Langman

Details

AGLC: R v Langman [2018] NZHC 2670
Case: [2018] NZHC 2670
Decision Date: 12 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Langman involves the sentencing of Lance Langman, who pleaded guilty to charges of exploitative sexual connection with a person with a significant impairment and attempting to have exploitative sexual connection with a person with a significant impairment. Each charge carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Langman should be sentenced to a substantial finite sentence or an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention, as sought by the Crown under section 87 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court needed to assess Langman's risk of reoffending, the nature and seriousness of his past and current offending, and the adequacy of a finite sentence in protecting the community.

The court considered Langman's personal history, which included childhood sexual abuse, developmental issues, and previous convictions for similar offences. Langman had previously been sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for sexual offences committed against a woman with cerebral palsy. Despite participation in psychological treatment and programs in prison, Langman committed the current offences two years after his release on parole. The court weighed the aggravating factors, including Langman's predatory behavior and lack of insight into his offending, against the mitigating factors, such as his childhood trauma and willingness to engage in treatment.

In deciding whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, the court examined whether Langman was likely to commit another qualifying offence if released at the expiry of his sentence. The court noted that while Langman presented a moderate risk of reoffending, the potential risk was manageable through appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures. The court concluded that Langman was not likely to commit another qualifying offence, and therefore, did not impose preventive detention. Instead, Langman was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years and four months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and three months. The court also issued a clear warning that if Langman offended again in a similar manner, he would likely be sentenced to preventive detention.

Orders