R v LANGMAN [2018] NZHC 2670

R v LANGMAN [2018] NZHC 2670

Preventive detention declined because the judge was not satisfied the offender was 'likely' to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence if released at sentence expiry; although risk was real and moderate, offending was non‑violent, limited to known vulnerable persons, potentially manageable with monitoring and treatment, so a finite concurrent sentence of five years four months with a minimum term of three years three months was imposed after uplift for prior similar offending and a guilty plea discount.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2670
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Lance Langman
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Exploitation) / Sentencing (post Plea)
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment: five years and four months with a minimum period of three years and three months; preventive detention declined.
Legal Topics
Exploitative Sexual Connection, Preventive Detention, Guilty Plea Discount, Minimum Period of Imprisonment, Extended Supervision Order Eligibility, Three Strikes Warning
Criminal Law Sentencing Sexual Offences Risk Management Parole/preventive Detention Exploitative Sexual Connection Preventive Detention Guilty Plea Discount +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Lance Langman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Exploitation) / Sentencing (post Plea)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether preventive detention under s87 Sentencing Act 2002 is required
  2. 2 Appropriate finite sentence starting point and adjustments for aggravating/mitigating features
  3. 3 Assessment of risk of sexual reoffending and manageability

Ratio Decidendi

Preventive detention declined because the judge was not satisfied the offender was 'likely' to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence if released at sentence expiry; although risk was real and moderate, offending was non‑violent, limited to known vulnerable persons, potentially manageable with monitoring and treatment, so a finite concurrent sentence of five years four months with a minimum term of three years three months was imposed after uplift for prior similar offending and a guilty plea discount.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment: five years and four months with a minimum period of three years and three months; preventive detention declined.

Orders

  • Leave granted for Crown to withdraw third representative charge
  • Convictions recorded on two charges of exploitative sexual connection with a person with a significant impairment and attempting same