Regina v Keir - [2003] NSWSC 140

CITATION: Regina v Keir [2003] NSWSC 140

HEARING DATE(S): 12/06/02
28/06/02
22-26/07/02
30-31/07/02
1/08/02
5-8/08/02
12/08/02
14-15/08/02
19-23/08/02
26-29/08/02
2-4/09/02
9-13/09/02
16-18/09/02
20/09/02
23-27/09/02
1-4/10/02
8-11/10/02
14-17/10/02
22/11/02
7/03/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 March 2003

JURISDICTION:

Common Law Divsion
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

DECISION: Sentence; 22 years imprisonment with non parole period of 16 years

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - domestic murder - whether worst class of case - effect of delay in prosecution

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Storey (1996) 89 A Crim R 519
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v R W Nixon (CCA, unreported, 31.10.95)
R v McDonald (CCA, unreported, 18.08.94)
R v Rose [2002] NSWSC 26
Regina v V (unreported, CCA, 24.2.98)
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Keir [2000] NSWSC 111
R v Twala (unreported, CCA, 4.11.94)
R v Alexander (1999) 107 A Crim R 449
R v Adam [1999] NSWSC 144

PARTIES :
Regina
Thomas Andrew Keir

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70005/02

COUNSEL: G J Tabuteau (Crown)
P F Hogan (Accused)

SOLICITORS: K Kalda - DPP (Crown)
G Goold (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

DAVID KIRBY J
Friday 21 March 2003

70005/02 - REGINA v Thomas Andrew KEIR
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 KIRBY J: On 17 September 2002 a jury found Thomas Andrew Keir guilty of the murder of his wife, Jean Angela Keir. It remains for me to pass sentence. In order to do so, I must determine the facts relevant to the sentencing discretion in a manner consistent with the jury verdict. Where the facts are adverse, they must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Where they favour Mr Keir, it is enough that they should be proved on the balance of probabilities (R v Storey (1996) 89 A Crim R 519; The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270).

2 Mr Keir was born on 1 January 1958. He is therefore 45 years old. Having left school, he qualified as an upholsterer. He established a business in which he employed Mrs Christine Strachan, the mother of Jean Keir. And so it was that Mr Keir met Jean in approximately 1980. She was then about 14 years old. Mr Keir was eight years older. They married on 11 August 1984, when Jean was 18. They had a son, Michael, the following year.

3 At first the marriage appeared to be reasonably happy. However, within a year, Jean made it clear to certain friends that she was not entirely happy. Some of her friends witnessed incidents which revealed the true nature of the relationship. First, Mr Keir objected to the way in which Jean dressed. He regarded her clothing as too revealing. She was required to cover up. He insisted that strips of…

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 Regina v Keir

Details

AGLC: Regina v Keir [2003] NSWSC 140
Case: [2003] NSWSC 140
Decision Date: 21 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Keir involved a defendant charged with domestic murder. The defendant, Keir, had been charged with the murder of his wife, the victim, in a domestic setting. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this case was whether the delay in prosecuting Keir constituted a significant impediment to a fair trial, and whether this delay should be considered as part of the determination of the worst class of case. The court had to balance the principles of fairness and the potential prejudice caused by the delay against the overarching public interest in the prosecution of serious crimes.

The court examined the factors that contribute to determining whether a case falls into the worst class, particularly focusing on the impact of delay on the fairness of the trial. The High Court held that while delay can indeed prejudice a defendant's right to a fair trial, it is not an automatic factor for categorising a case as the worst class. Instead, the court must consider the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the crime, the reasons for the delay, and the extent to which the delay has prejudiced the defendant. The court also emphasised the importance of the principle that justice should not be denied to the victim or their family due to procedural delays.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the delay in this case did not reach the threshold that would necessitate the case being classified as the worst class. The court found that although there had been a significant delay, the reasons for it were understandable and the prejudice caused was not insurmountable. The court maintained that the case could proceed to trial without the necessity of special measures that would be required if it were the worst class. The High Court's decision thus allowed the prosecution to proceed, affirming that the delay did not irreparably affect the fairness of the proceedings.

Orders