REGINA v LANGBEIN [2000] NSWCCA 237

REGINA v LANGBEIN [2000] NSWCCA 237

The Court rejected the claims of entrapment and lack of intention to supply, and held that family hardship was not of itself a rare case warranting reduction. However, the sentence for agreeing to supply amphetamine placed the matter too far into the most serious class of cases when compared with sentencing statistics and the appellant's culpability, so error was demonstrated. The sentence was quashed and replaced by four years imprisonment with a two-year non-parole period, justified in part by special circumstances arising from the appellant's family responsibilities.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; sentence in respect of the offence of agreeing to supply amphetamine quashed and substituted with a sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'methylamphetamine' 'amphetamine' 'sentence Appeal' 'entrapment' 'family Hardship' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'methylamphetamine' 'amphetamine' 'sentence Appeal' 'entrapment' 'family Hardship' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was entrapped into committing the offences so as to mitigate sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not addressing a submission that the appellant had no real intention to supply one pound of amphetamine.' "Whether hardship to the appellant's family and children warranted a reduction in sentence." 'Whether the sentence for agreeing to supply amphetamine was excessive having regard to culpability and sentencing statistics.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court rejected the claims of entrapment and lack of intention to supply, and held that family hardship was not of itself a rare case warranting reduction. However, the sentence for agreeing to supply amphetamine placed the matter too far into the most serious class of cases when compared with sentencing statistics and the appellant's culpability, so error was demonstrated. The sentence was quashed and replaced by four years imprisonment with a two-year non-parole period, justified in part by special circumstances arising from the appellant's family responsibilities.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; sentence in respect of the offence of agreeing to supply amphetamine quashed and substituted with a sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The sentence in respect of the offence of agreeing to supply amphetamine is quashed.' 'The appellant is sentenced to a term of four years imprisonment to commence on 1 June 1999 and expire on 31 May 2003 with a non-parole period of two years to date from 1 June 1999.' 'No change is...