AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 28 May 2025

R v Camara; R v Langlo

[2025] NSWDC 307

Fraud & dishonestyTheft & property

Citation: R v Camara; R v Langlo [2025] NSWDC 307
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 May 2025
Judge(s): Haesler SC DCJ

Background

In the early hours of 6 May 2024, two men broke into a commercial premises in the Wollongong area and stole over $34,000 worth of cigarettes, causing approximately $3,500 in property damage. One offender disabled an external CCTV camera while the other kept watch, before both forced entry through a metal security gate. Both men were quickly identified by police, who were familiar with them locally.

Following arrest, phone messages confirmed the offenders had discussed selling the stolen cigarettes and dividing the proceeds. Each offender was charged with aggravated break and enter in company with intent to steal (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(2)) and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime (Crimes Act, s 193B(2)). Both entered early guilty pleas, first indicating those pleas in the Local Court.

The two men were sentenced jointly. Both claimed their motivation was to raise cash to repay drug debts arising from heavy ice addiction, though the court did not accept all aspects of those claims in the absence of sworn evidence.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the break and enter and proceeds offences, and how should double-counting be avoided when sentencing for both?
  • How should the parity principle apply where co-offenders have different criminal histories, ages, and roles but broadly comparable moral culpability?
  • What weight should be given to drug addiction and financial pressure from drug dealers as subjective mitigating factors?
  • Whether an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) was appropriate, or whether full-time imprisonment was required.
  • How should the 25% utilitarian discount for early guilty pleas interact with accumulation of sentences and the standard non-parole period?

Decision

Haesler SC DCJ assessed the offending as serious but below the middle of the range for objective seriousness. The premises had been deliberately targeted for their valuable stock, entry was forced late at night, and there was some rudimentary planning. The court acknowledged the real impact of this type of offending on small business owners, noting that even insured losses impose broader community costs through increased insurance premiums.

On the proceeds of crime charge, the court was careful to avoid double-counting. His Honour noted that dealing in proceeds is almost axiomatic when goods are stolen with intent to sell them, and that the proceeds offence required some independent punishment while the aggregate sentence remained proportionate to the total criminality.

On parity, the court found that although Camara was older and was on parole at the time of the offending (both aggravating factors), and Langlo was younger with an extensive prior criminal history, the relevant factors broadly evened out. Both offenders claimed the same motivation, played broadly similar roles, and the differences did not justify differential sentences. The court imposed the same sentence on each.

The court rejected an ICO for both offenders. Noting that community protection was paramount, His Honour was not satisfied either man could reliably comply with the strict requirements of an ICO given their backgrounds, addiction histories, and criminal records.

Orders Made

Camara:
- Break and enter: 2 years 3 months, non-parole period 1 year 3 months
- Proceeds of crime: 1 year 10 months
- Aggregate sentence: 2 years 9 months, commencing 23 July 2024
- Release to parole: 22 January 2026
- Parole period: 1 year 3 months (expiring 22 April 2027)

Langlo:
- Break and enter: 2 years 3 months, non-parole period 1 year 3 months
- Proceeds of crime: 1 year 10 months
- Sentence backdated by 210 days, commencing 30 October 2024
- Release to parole: 29 April 2026
- Parole period: 1 year 3 months (expiring 29 July 2027)

Both sentences reflected a 25% reduction for the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas, and special circumstances were found in each case.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that when break and enter offending is motivated by intent to sell stolen goods, a charge of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime will almost inevitably follow, but the sentencing court must take care to avoid double-counting when fixing the aggregate penalty.
  • Applying the parity principle from R v Ponfield, the court held that where co-offenders' differing subjective circumstances broadly cancel each other out, equal sentences are appropriate even where individual backgrounds differ.
  • Drug addiction and financial pressure from drug dealers were treated as relevant context explaining motivation, but neither operated as an excuse or a significant mitigating factor in their own right.
  • Under the instinctive synthesis approach, the standard non-parole period for s 112(2) offences serves as a guide rather than a rigid benchmark, and departure was justified here by the guilty pleas and the offending falling below the mid-range of seriousness.
  • An ICO was considered but rejected because the court could not be satisfied that either offender would comply with its strict requirements, leaving full-time imprisonment as the only appropriate option for community protection.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(2), 193B(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 42A

Cases:
- R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435
- Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194