R v Keegan - [2022] NSWDC 715

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Keegan [2022] NSWDC 715
Hearing dates: 12 December 2022
Date of orders: 12 December 2022
Decision date: 12 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of four years and six months. Non‑parole period of two years and six months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Aggravated break & enter commit serious indictable offence - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of other(s)
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence- early guilty plea - home invasion - in company - no apparent planning - serious harm inflicted - weapon used - good Samaritan assaulted – offender’s deprived background- young immature offender - how to break a pattern of behaviour of “getting drunk and doing dumb shit,” leading the commission of crimes, arrest and gaol – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900

Category: Sentence
Parties: Ryan Keegan (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Kwan (for the offender)
Mr T George (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2012/00367057

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

When he was before the Local Court, Ryan Keegan, indicated that he would plead guilty to two very serious offences:

Aggravated break, enter and commit the serious indictable offence of reckless wounding; with a circumstance of aggravation being he was in company. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and for an offence that, taking into account only objective features, falls in the middle of the range, Parliament fixed a standard non‑parole period of 5 years: s 112 Crimes Act 1900.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm while being in company. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment: s 59(2) Crimes Act. That offence that occurred in the same premises

Keegan’s adhered to those pleas today. His pleas indicated his acceptance of responsibility for the offence. The material before me also indicates that he has shown some insight into his offending. Matters I can and will consider. The utilitarian value of the guilty pleas requires that I reduce each of the two sentences I will indicate by 25%. I will take care that the process of accumulation does not undermine that benefit.
Although the two offences arise out of the same developing set of circumstances there must be some additional punishment to reflect the two crimes, and the fact there were two victims. I must fix a just and appropriate sentence for both matters taking into account all sentencing principles. The aggregate sentence I impose must properly reflect the totality of the crimes committed and all relevant matters in mitigation. I must indicate sentences that reflect what was done and the offender’s personal circumstances. It is accepted that can only be done by imposing a term of imprisonment.
That term must take guidance from the maximum penalties and standard non‑parole periods that apply. I must give content to the standard non‑parole period but there are a number of factors which play upon this discretionary decision. The…

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 Keegan

Details

AGLC: R v Keegan [2022] NSWDC 715
Case: [2022] NSWDC 715
Decision Date: 12 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Keegan, the defendant stood accused of a serious indictable offence involving aggravated break and enter, accompanied by assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The incident occurred in the company of others, and a good Samaritan was also assaulted during the course of the crime. The case was heard and determined in a relevant Australian court, with the defendant pleading guilty early. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering various factors, including the nature of the offence, the use of a weapon, the lack of planning, the defendant's background, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the appropriate punishment for the defendant's actions, taking into account the serious nature of the crime, the harm caused to the victims, and the defendant's background and prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to weigh the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's early guilty plea, his deprived background, and his status as a young, immature offender, against the aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon, the harm inflicted, and the defendant's history of engaging in criminal behaviour when intoxicated.

In delivering the sentence, the court considered the totality of the circumstances. The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea and the absence of apparent planning in the offence. However, it also recognised the serious harm caused to the victims, the use of a weapon, and the fact that a good Samaritan was assaulted. The court took into account the defendant's deprived background and his history of engaging in criminal behaviour when intoxicated. Ultimately, the court decided that an aggregate sentence of four years and six months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of two years and six months.

The court's final orders were that the defendant would serve an aggregate sentence of four years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, aiming to achieve a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of four years and six months. Non‑parole period of two years and six months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Keegan [2022] NSWDC 715
Hearing dates:	12 December 2022
Date of orders:	12 December 2022
Decision date:	12 December 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of four years and six months. Non‑parole period of two years and six months.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Aggravated break & enter commit serious indictable offence - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of other(s) SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence- early guilty plea - home invasion - in company - no apparent planning - serious harm inflicted - weapon used - good Samaritan assaulted – offender’s deprived background- young immature offender - how to break a pattern of behaviour of “getting drunk and doing dumb shit,” leading the commission of crimes, arrest and gaol – special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Ryan Keegan (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr M Kwan (for the offender) Mr T George (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2012/00367057