R v McKeough - [2016] SADC 112

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCKEOUGH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 112
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Costello
21 September 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY - AGGRAVATION
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone - accused charged with two counts of aggravated robbery contrary to s 137(1) of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, two counts of dishonestly manipulating a machine contrary to s 141(1)(a) of the Act and one count of attempting to dishonestly manipulate a machine contrary to ss 141(1)(a) and 270A of the Act.
VERDICTS: Counts 1 - 5 guilty on each count.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 137(1), 141(1)(a), 270A; Juries Act 1927 s 7(1), referred to.
R v Hillier & Reilly [2015] SADC 77; R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317; R v Pantoja (1996) 88 A Crim R 554; R v Noll [1999] 3 VR 704; R v Rye [2007] VSCA 247; Aytugrul v The Queen (2010) 205 A Crim R 157; R v Joyce [2014] SADC 125; Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; R v Micallef [2002] NSWCCA 480; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; R v Clarke (1997) 97 A Crim R 414, considered.

R v MCKEOUGH
[2016] SADC 112
Introduction

This is a trial by judge alone. The accused is charged with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Robbery. (Section 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Anthony David McKeough on the 28^th day of May 2015 at Modbury, used force against Clare Ann Lindop in order to commit the theft of a laptop computer bag, laptop charger and internet dongle, of the value of less than $2,500, and the force was used, or the threat was made at the time of, or immediately before and after, the theft.
It is further alleged that Anthony David McKeough used an offensive weapon, namely a meat cleaver, when committing the offence.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Robbery. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Anthony David McKeough on the 28^th day of May 2015 at Modbury, used force against Louie James Boniface in order to commit the theft of a wallet containing bank cards, a driver’s licence, and $5.00 cash, together of the value of less than $2,500, and the force was used, or the threat was made at the time of, or immediately before and after, the theft.
It is further alleged that…

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 McKeough

Details

AGLC: R v McKeough [2016] SADC 112
Case: [2016] SADC 112
Decision Date: 21 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McKeough involved the defendant, McKeough, who was charged with robbery and the unlawful possession of an offensive weapon. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court was tasked with determining the appropriate charges and sentences for the defendant's actions. The incident in question involved McKeough robbing a convenience store at knifepoint, leading to the charges being laid.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the defendant's actions constituted robbery under the common law definition and whether the knife used constituted an offensive weapon under the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to consider the definition of robbery, which requires an element of violence or intimidation, and whether the defendant's use of a knife during the robbery met this criteria. Additionally, the court needed to examine the statutory definition of an offensive weapon and whether the knife used by McKeough fit within this definition.

The court determined that McKeough's actions did indeed amount to robbery, as the use of a knife during the incident created an element of violence that constituted intimidation. The court found that the defendant's actions were premeditated and executed with the intent to cause fear, thereby meeting the criteria for robbery under common law. Furthermore, the court concluded that the knife used by McKeough qualified as an offensive weapon under the statutory provisions, as it was capable of causing significant harm and was used in a manner that could endanger the lives of others. Consequently, the court found McKeough guilty of both robbery and the unlawful possession of an offensive weapon. The court then proceeded to deliver a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences committed. McKeough was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the court considering the aggravating factors present in the case, such as the use of a weapon and the premeditated nature of the crime.

Orders