KEED -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 236

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 236
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:212/1999	Heard:	16 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	IPP J WALLWORK J MILLER J	Delivered:	16/08/00
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL GEORGE KEED THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against sentence Armed robbery in company Party with co-offender Relevance of release on bail pending sentence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Bail Act 1982
Case References:	Thompson and Owen v R (1998) 105 A Crim R 150 Bazzo & Frazetto v R (1999) 108 A Crim R 392 Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281 Gray v R [1977] VR 225 Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 8 May 1994 Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Mortimer v R, unreported; Library No 970576; 14 October 1997 R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329 R v Shaharuddin [1999] WASCA 229 Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 98152; 6 April 1998 Urquhart v R, unreported; Library No 950484; 13 September 1995

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KEED -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 236 CORAM : IPP J

WALLWORK J

MILLER J

HEARD : 16 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 16 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 212 of 1999 BETWEEN : MICHAEL GEORGE KEED

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Armed robbery in company - Party with co-offender - Relevance of release on bail pending sentence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bail Act 1982

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr T F Percy QC & Ms L Boston

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms J A Girdham

Solicitors:

Applicant : Max Crispe

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Thompson and Owen v R (1998) 105 A Crim R 150

Case(s) also cited:

Bazzo & Frazetto v R (1999) 108 A Crim R 392
Goddard v The Queen [1999] WASCA 281
Gray v R [1977] VR 225
Gutteridge v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940410; 8 May 1994
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Mortimer v R, unreported; Library No 970576; 14 October 1997
R v Peterson [1984] WAR 329
R v Shaharuddin [1999] WASCA 229
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 98152; 6 April 1998
Urquhart v R, unreported; Library No 950484; 13 September 1995

(Page 3)
1 IPP J: I invite Miller J to deliver the first judgment.

2 MILLER J: The applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing two counts of armed robbery in company. There was a co-offender charged with the same offences and the relevant facts as set out by the learned trial Judge were:

"You and one…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Keed v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Keed v The Queen [2000] WASCA 236
Case: [2000] WASCA 236
Decision Date: 16 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Keed v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of armed robbery in company, appealing against the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had participated in a robbery with a co-offender and was subsequently charged and convicted. He was released on bail pending his sentence but later reoffended. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's release on bail, followed by a reoffending, should influence the severity of the sentence imposed for the original offence.

The court considered the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's reoffending while on bail. It was necessary to determine if the reoffending, occurring after the commission of the original offence but before sentencing, should be a mitigating or aggravating factor in sentencing. The court examined precedents and legal principles to assess how the reoffending should impact the overall sentencing framework. Ultimately, the court found that the reoffending was an aggravating factor and should lead to a harsher sentence. The appellant's application for appeal against his sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.