R v Keighran

Case [2018] NSWDC 536


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Keighran [2018] NSWDC 536
Hearing dates: 26 March 2018
Date of orders: 03 April 2018
Decision date: 03 April 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

Accused sentenced to 2 years and 7 months imprisonment.
Non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Property offences — Destroying or damaging property
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Extra curial punishment
CRIME — Complicity — Joint criminal enterprise
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 195
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A

Cases Cited:

R v Harmouche (2015) 158 A Crim R 357
Jehad Jodeh v R (2011) NSWCCA 194
Hampton v R [2014] NSWCCA 13
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown
Scott Stephen Keighran (Accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr V Constantino (Crown)
Mr S Buchen S.C. (Accused)

  Solicitors:
Ms R Trinnie (Crown)
Mr Jamison (Accused)
File Number(s): 2016/220377

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and adhered to that plea before me to an offence that, while in company, on 10 June 2016 at Emu Plains he damaged by fire the O’Donoghue’s Irish hotel at 99 Great Western Highway, Emu Plains. A moment ago he was arraigned on an indictment because, as the transcript will reveal, over the course of the adjournment from last week I had cause to consider that perhaps the charge that had been laid in the Local Court was technically deficient. Of course, he should be taken to have entered his plea to that charge in the Local Court.

  2. The relevant offence is an offence under s 195 subs 1A subpara (b) of the Crimes Act and has a maximum penalty of 11 years imprisonment. There is no applicable standard non-parole period.

Agreed Facts

  1. The facts are, to a significant degree, agreed and what follows comes from the facts. The Crown also tendered the CCTV footage of the incident, and I will be saying something about that. The offender gave evidence before me and part of his evidence touched on how the fire at the hotel came to be lit and his role in the lighting of it. The following then is taken from the facts document.

  2. On the evening of 9 June Mr Harley McKenna, now deceased, and the offender attended the O’Donoghue’s Irish Pub in Emu Plains where they remained for some time, consuming alcohol together. Just prior to 8pm, staff at the hotel requested the men leave due to their offensive and quarrelsome behaviour. Although they became argumentative with staff, both men left the hotel and went to the offender’s home located about 200 metres from the hotel at 5 Avoca Avenue, Emu Plains.

  3. Some time after leaving the hotel and while spending time at the offender’s home, the offender and Mr McKenna returned to the hotel. The offender carried…

Continue reading R v Keighran

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Keighran [2018] NSWDC 536
Case
[2018] NSWDC 536
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Keighran, the respondent stood accused of engaging in a property offence, specifically the destruction or damage of property, as well as complicity in a joint criminal enterprise. The case was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court. The primary dispute centred on the extent of the respondent's involvement in the criminal activities and the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account various aggravating and subjective factors.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the determination of the respondent's level of culpability in the criminal activities, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the impact of any extra curial punishment or aggravating factors, such as a breach of conditional liberty, on the sentencing decision. The court had to balance these considerations to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence for the respondent.

Upon examining the evidence and the arguments presented, the court found that the respondent had played a significant role in the joint criminal enterprise and had engaged in the destruction or damage of property. The court also considered the extra curial punishment and the aggravating factor of the breach of conditional liberty. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the respondent was two years and seven months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and eight months. This sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offence, the respondent's level of culpability, and the aggravating factors present in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Accused sentenced to 2 years and 7 months imprisonment.

Non-parole period of 1 year and 8 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.