Regina v Thomas Andrew Keir - [2000] NSWSC 111

CITATION: REGINA v THOMAS ANDREW KEIR [2000] NSWSC 111

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70049/98

HEARING DATE(S): 2/8/99, 3/8/99, 4/8/99, 5/8/99, 9/8/99, 10/8/99, 11/8/99, 12/8/99, 16/8/99, 17/8/99, 18/8/99, 19/8/99, 20/8/99, 24/8/99, 25/8/99,27/8/99, 30/8/99, 31/8/99, 1/9/99, 2/9/99, 6/9/99, 8/9/99, 9/9/99, 10/9/99, 13/9/99, 14/9/99, 15/9/99, 16/9/99, 17/9/99, 10/12/99, 29/2/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 February 2000

PARTIES :

THE QUEEN
v
THOMAS ANDREW KEIR

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr S Cogswell SC (Crown)
Mr P Zahra (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Anna Ilardo (Office of the DPP) (Crown)
Simon Buchen (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - murder - intent to cause grievous bodily harm - gravity of "domestic" murder - use of Victim's Impact Statement

CASES CITED: The Queen v Main (1999) NSWSC 1174 at [16]
Veen (No 1) 1979 143 CLR 458
Regina v Vusumuzi Twala (unreported NSWCCA 4 November 1994)
Veen (No 2) 1987/88 164 CLR 465
Garforth (unreported NSWCCA 23 May 9994)

DECISION: Imprisonment for twenty-four years comprising a minimum term of eighteen years commecing 20 February 1998 (the date upon which custody for this offence commenced) and ending on 19 February 2016 and an additional term of six years commencing 20 February 2016 and ending on 19 February 2022.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

ADAMS J
TUESDAY 29 FEBRUARY 2000
70049/98

REGINA v THOMAS ANDREW KEIR

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: On 17 September 1999 Thomas Andrew Keir was convicted by a jury of murdering his then wife, Jean Angela Keir, on or about 9 February 1988 at Tregear in the State of New South Wales. 2 Mrs Keir and the prisoner were married in August 1984 when she was eighteen and he was twenty-six years of age. Their son, Michael, was born at the end of the year. There is no doubt that Mrs Keir was a loving and devoted mother. Regrettably, however, her marriage was at times a most unhappy one, increasingly so as the years passed. I need not for the purposes of these reasons to dilate upon these circumstances. It is, however, fair to say that the prisoner became extremely possessive of his wife and jealous of her relationships, not only with other male friends or acquaintances but also with male members of her own family. I have no doubt that he was also violent towards her from time to time although there is no evidence that, aside from the possibility of some bruising, she suffered any actual physical injury. However, there was a deal of evidence which established that from time to time throughout their marriage the prisoner threatened to kill her if she should ever leave him for another man. He made these threats not only to his wife, but to others. Mrs Keir from time to time, had expressed to her friends and family her unhappiness in the marriage arising out of the prisoner’s obsessive jealousy but feared that if she left him he would find her and kill her. 3 In late 1987, as it happened, Mrs…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Thomas Andrew Keir and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 111
Decision Date: 29 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the sentencing of Thomas Andrew Keir for the murder of his partner, Samantha Jane Smith. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Keir pleaded guilty to the murder, but contested the degree of intent, claiming that the act was not premeditated. The prosecution argued for a sentence reflecting the gravity of the crime, particularly given the domestic nature of the murder.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate degree of culpability and intent in the commission of the murder. The court had to consider whether Keir intended to cause grievous bodily harm, which would elevate the offence to murder, or if the act was a result of sudden and heated confrontation, potentially mitigating the sentence. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the impact of the victim's impact statement on the sentencing process.

The court found that Keir's actions, while not premeditated, demonstrated a significant level of intent to cause harm. The judge emphasised the gravity of domestic violence and the devastating impact of such crimes on the victim and their family. The court held that the degree of intent was sufficient to classify the offence as murder. In considering the victim's impact statement, the court recognised the profound emotional and psychological toll on Samantha Smith's family and friends. This statement, along with the circumstances of the murder, contributed to the court's decision to impose a severe sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Thomas Andrew Keir be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of the intent, the impact of the crime on the victim's family, and the necessity to deter similar offences in the future.

Orders