Legal Research
Cases
Keefe v The Queen

Keefe v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 201 8 September 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0082

GREGORY WILLIAM KEEFE

Applicant

THE QUEEN

Respondent

S APCR 2013 0125

ROSS DAVID SIMPSON

Applicant

THE QUEEN

Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and WEINBERG JJA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 September 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 201
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP (Cth) v Keefe; DPP (Cth) v Simpson [2012] VCC 1175 (Judge O’Neill)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Applications for leave to appeal – Inconsistent verdicts – Applicants convicted of two charges of conspiring to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity (Australia Post) (Charges 1 and 2) – Applicants acquitted of two further charges (Charges 3 and 4) – Whether conviction on Charge 1 inconsistent with acquittal on Charge 3 – Verdicts reconcilable based on different facts in respect of Charges 1 and 3 – Differing verdicts not an affront to logic or common sense – Applications for leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Applications for leave to appeal – Total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment – Whether total effective sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive – Whether sentence disproportionate to that imposed on co-conspirator – Applications for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr C B Boyce with Ms S Leighfield	Anthony Isaacs
For the Respondent	Mr D J Lane with Mr A J Buckland	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA
WEINBERG JA
SIFRIS AJA:

Sifris AJA delivered the judgment of the Court.

On 14 August 2012 the applicants, Gregory William Keefe (‘Keefe’) and Ross David Simpson (‘Simpson’), were each convicted, following a trial in the County Court, of two charges of conspiring dishonestly to cause a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity (Charges 1 and 2). The applicants were each acquitted of two further charges (Charges 3 and 4) of the same offence.

On 14 August 2012, following a plea on 30 and 31 July and 1 August 2012, identical sentences were imposed upon each applicant. Each applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

The applicants seek leave to appeal against the conviction in relation to Charge 1, and leave to appeal against sentence generally.

Circumstances Surrounding the Offending

Keefe and Simpson were the sole directors of Mailing Advantage Pty Ltd (‘MA’), which provided mailing-house services to businesses and community organisations. They performed a ‘hands on’ role in running the business. Each was a former long-time employee of Australia Post (‘AP’) and had detailed knowledge of the mailing system.

Charge 1

Until February 2004, MA lodged all its bulk mail at Dandenong Letters Centre (‘DLC’), a major AP facility, via an AP truck which collected bulk mail from MA’s factory each day and took it to DLC for lodgement. From February 2004 until March 2008, although the free daily AP…

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 Keefe v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Gregory William Keefe and v The Queen and [2014] VSCA 201
Case: [2014] VSCA 201
Decision Date: 8 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this matter were convicted of conspiring to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity, Australia Post, on two separate occasions. They were acquitted of two further charges. They sought leave to appeal against both their convictions and sentences. The appeal related to two key issues. The first was whether the applicants’ conviction on one charge was inconsistent with their acquittal on another charge. The second was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and disproportionate to that imposed on their co-conspirator.

The court found that the verdicts could be reconciled as they were based on different facts. The court held that the differing verdicts did not present an affront to logic or common sense. Regarding the sentences, the court found that neither the total effective sentence nor the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The court also held that the sentences were not disproportionate to that imposed on the co-conspirator. Accordingly, the applicants’ applications for leave to appeal were refused.

No further orders were made by the court. The applicants’ convictions and sentences were upheld.

Orders