LANGHAM v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 306

LANGHAM v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 306

The applicant did not demonstrate legal error or that the individual or total sentences were outside the appropriate range. Although the sentencing reasons ought to have referred to the psychologist's diagnosis, the applicant's drug dependency, PTSD, depression and low to moderate recidivism risk did not excuse the conduct, materially reduce the criminality, or require a finding of special circumstances. The manufacturing offence was serious and called for deterrence, and the later supply offence justified partial cumulation. No appealable error was shown in the non-parole periods, totality, refusal to find special circumstances, or alleged manifest excess.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manufacture of Methylamphetamine' 'supply of Methylamphetamine' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'subjective Circumstances' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'drug Dependency' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['manufacture of Methylamphetamine' 'supply of Methylamphetamine' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'totality' 'subjective Circumstances' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'drug Dependency' 'manifest Excess']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the applicant's subjective circumstances, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, history of drug use and low to moderate likelihood of recidivism." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider totality with respect to the imposition of the non-parole period and the overall statutory ratio to be applied to the sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to find special circumstances.' 'Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the sentences should have been made partly cumulative.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate legal error or that the individual or total sentences were outside the appropriate range. Although the sentencing reasons ought to have referred to the psychologist's diagnosis, the applicant's drug dependency, PTSD, depression and low to moderate recidivism risk did not excuse the conduct, materially reduce the criminality, or require a finding of special circumstances. The manufacturing offence was serious and called for deterrence, and the later supply offence justified partial cumulation. No appealable error was shown in the non-parole periods, totality, refusal to find special circumstances, or alleged manifest excess.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']