Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88

Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88

The first ground failed because the sentencing judge referred to the evidence of remorse in general terms, had the advantage of seeing the applicant and his partner give evidence, and no appealable error was shown in rejecting or giving little weight to remorse. The appeal succeeded on manifest excess because the driving offence factually overlapped with the break and enter offences and did not justify six months accumulation, and the two aggravated break and enter offences, although involving separate premises, formed one relatively short episode of criminality so that 12 months accumulation produced an excessive effective sentence. On re-sentence, the applicant's improved rehabilitation...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; driving whilst disqualified sentence confirmed; other sentences quashed and substituted.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Break and Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'driving Whilst Disqualified' 'form 1 Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'totality' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'remorse' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Break and Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'driving Whilst Disqualified' 'form 1 Offences' 'manifest Excess' 'totality' 'accumulation of Sentences' 'remorse' 'special Circumstances']

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 Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to find that the applicant was remorseful.' 'Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive by reason of the accumulation of sentences and the total effective sentence.' 'Whether special circumstances justified variation of the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and balance of term.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first ground failed because the sentencing judge referred to the evidence of remorse in general terms, had the advantage of seeing the applicant and his partner give evidence, and no appealable error was shown in rejecting or giving little weight to remorse. The appeal succeeded on manifest excess because the driving offence factually overlapped with the break and enter offences and did not justify six months accumulation, and the two aggravated break and enter offences, although involving separate premises, formed one relatively short episode of criminality so that 12 months accumulation produced an excessive effective sentence. On re-sentence, the applicant's improved rehabilitation...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; driving whilst disqualified sentence confirmed; other sentences quashed and substituted.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Confirm the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge in respect of the offence of driving whilst disqualified including the period of disqualification imposed by his Honour.' 'Otherwise, the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge are quashed and the following...