Keenan v The Queen - [2015] ACTCA 52

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Keenan v The Queen
Citation:	[2015] ACTCA 52
Hearing Date:	5 August 2015
Date last submissions received:	20 August 2015
DecisionDate:	13 October 2015
Before:	Refshauge ACJ, Penfold & North JJ
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Appeal against conviction – criminal trial – armed robbery – self represented appellant – refusal of adjournment – conduct of the trial – failure to cross examine – failure to call alibi evidence – restraint of the accused
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 23A(6), 23F Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 138 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 43 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37O(2)
Cases Cited:	Eastman v R (1997) 158 ALR 107 R v DAJ [2005] QCA 40 R v Juric (2002) 4 VR 411 R v Kanaan [2005] NSWCCA 385
Parties:	Dylan Elias Keenan (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel In person (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent)
Solicitors In person (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 51 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 25 September 2014 Case Title: R v Keenan Citation: SCC 202 of 2013

THE COURT:

Introduction

On 25 September 2014, Dylan Keenan was found guilty by a jury of an armed robbery committed on 19 August 2013, and Burns J recorded a conviction. By notice of appeal dated 20 October 2014, he appealed against the conviction.

Background

The IGA supermarket in Chapman was robbed at about 6:15 am on 19 August 2013 by a person wearing dark clothes and a dark balaclava and carrying a gun. The robber, having been persuaded by IGA staff that they were unable to open the safe, took $750 from each of the two tills and left the premises.

Shortly before the robbery, at about 5:45 am, one of the IGA staff members, who was on his way to work, saw a red Nissan Pulsar hatchback with its headlights off driving away from the Chapman shops towards the nearby Chapman Primary School car park.

Not long after the robbery, a black balaclava was found about 200 metres away from the IGA in the Chapman Primary School car park. A .22 calibre round of ammunition was found on the ground near the back loading dock of the IGA.

DNA and a hair found on the outside the balaclava were linked to Mr Keenan by forensic testing.

On 29 August 2013, Mr Keenan’s home in Cooma was searched by police pursuant to a warrant. A shortened rifle matching the appearance of the gun shown in CCTV footage of the robbery was found in the house. The ammunition found outside the IGA was linked to Mr Keenan’s rifle by forensic examination.

On 15 August 2013 Mr Keenan, in company with his sister, had bought a red Nissan Pulsar hatchback from a business in Fyshwick.

Mr Keenan was represented at trial by experienced…

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 Keenan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Keenan v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 52
Case: [2015] ACTCA 52
Decision Date: 13 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for armed robbery, brought before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory by the self-represented appellant. The central dispute revolved around the fairness of the trial proceedings, particularly the refusal of an adjournment, the appellant's conduct during the trial, and alleged failures by the trial judge to intervene or assist the appellant, who was unrepresented.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in refusing the appellant's application for an adjournment, whether the conduct of the trial, including the appellant's failure to cross-examine witnesses and present alibi evidence, rendered the trial unfair, and whether the appellant's restraint during the proceedings constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the trial judge's management of the trial, in light of the appellant's self-representation, was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the trial judge had not erred in refusing the adjournment, finding that the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for such a request. The court further held that while the appellant's self-representation presented challenges, the trial judge had acted appropriately in managing the proceedings and had not failed in any duty to assist the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant's conduct, including the failure to cross-examine and present alibi evidence, was a consequence of his own choices and did not, in itself, demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The principles applied focused on the discretion of the trial judge in managing proceedings and the onus on an appellant to demonstrate unfairness or error.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is 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.