R v Ah Keni - [2020] NSWSC 1848

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ah Keni [2020] NSWSC 1848
Hearing dates: 9 December 2020
Decision date: 17 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months

Catchwords:
CRIME - sentence - accessory after murder - "execution"-style shooting - offender married to co-offender - helped drive away co-offenders and organised escape from jurisdiction - lying to police - no criminal record - six children - good character - limited remorse - custodial sentence - discount for guilty plea - special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A

Cases Cited:
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
R v Stanford, Marcus [2016] NSWSC 1174
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Analosa Ah Keni
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Newton (Crown)
Mr A Evers (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Sydney Crime Defence and Traffic Lawyers

File Number(s): 2018/69245

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Ms Analosa Ah Keni is to be sentenced for an offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder.
The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 25 years.

The offence

The terms of the charge, to which Ms Ah Keni ("the offender") has pleaded guilty, is that Arthur Keleklio and Abraham Sinai murdered Ho Ledinh on 23 January 2018 at Bankstown and that from that date until 8 May 2018 she did "receive, harbour, maintain and assist” those two men, knowing that they had committed the murder.
There is a statement of agreed facts that has been signed by the offender and her solicitor. I have drawn the following description of what occurred from that statement.

The murder of Mr Ho Ledinh

Mr Ho Ledinh was a 65-year-old solicitor who had an office at 12 Bankstown City Plaza in the Bankstown CBD. At about 3.35pm on Tuesday 23 January 2018 he was seated at a table with two friends outside the Happy Cup Café at 68 Bankstown City Plaza. Arthur Keleklio approached and shot Mr Ledinh three times at close range with .45 calibre ammunition fired from a handgun. Keleklio was driven away by the offender and her husband, Abraham Sinai.
It is said that the motive for the murder arose from a dispute over a debt relating to drug supply and money laundering activities. On one side, there was Andrew Khai Duong, and on the other, there was Tri Van Nguyen and the deceased. Abraham Sinai was Khai's "enforcer" and was engaged by him to murder the deceased. This is all that appears in the statement of facts about the motive. It is simply the Crown case theory; it is not an agreed fact in itself.

Detail as to the murder

Keleklio and Sinai were in regular contact with each other in the fortnight or so before the murder.
On Tuesday 23 January…

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 R v Ah Keni

Details

AGLC: Rv AhKeni [2020] NSWSC 1848
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1848
Decision Date: 17 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ah Keni, the respondent was charged with being an accessory after the fact to a murder committed in Sydney. The victim, an associate of the respondent, was shot in an "execution"-style manner. Ah Keni's role in the crime involved driving away the co-offenders and assisting in their escape from the jurisdiction. Furthermore, Ah Keni made false statements to the police and had no prior criminal history. Notably, Ah Keni was married to one of the co-offenders, and the couple had six children together. While Ah Keni had demonstrated good character in the past, the court observed that the level of remorse shown was limited. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the respondent, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the respondent's role, and the impact on the victim and their family.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate punishment for Ah Keni, considering the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation against the mitigating factors, including the lack of a criminal record, the role of an accessory after the fact, and the personal circumstances of the respondent. The court also had to decide whether to apply a discount for the guilty plea and whether any special circumstances warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the severity of the crime, acknowledging the heinous nature of the murder and the respondent's involvement in facilitating the escape of the co-offenders. The court recognised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message regarding the consequences of participating in such activities. However, the court also took into account the mitigating factors, including the respondent's clean criminal record, the lack of direct involvement in the murder, and the personal circumstances of the respondent, such as their role as a caregiver for their six children. Ultimately, the court decided on a custodial sentence, with a discount for the guilty plea and consideration of the special circumstances. The court emphasised the need for the sentence to reflect both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Ah Keni be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a discount applied for the early guilty plea. The court took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, ultimately determining that a custodial sentence was appropriate. The court also considered the special circumstances, such as the respondent's role as a caregiver for their children and the limited level of remorse shown. The court's decision reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging the seriousness of the crime while also recognising the mitigating factors and the impact on the respondent's family.

Orders