Dean McArthur Keown v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 115/2010
[2011] NZSC 7

DEAN MCARTHUR KEOWN

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel: A J Bailey and M Starling for Applicant
A Markham and K Laurenson for Crown

Judgment: 16 February 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal in relation to his appeal against sentence on drug charges.[1] The ground of the proposed appeal to this Court concerns the allowance made by the Court of Appeal in his sentence for the time the applicant spent on electronically monitored bail while on remand. The Court of Appeal had declined to draw analogies between electronically monitored bail and home detention and confirmed earlier sentencing decisions, which indicated that sentencing judges should take a flexible approach to allowances for time spent on electronically monitored bail taking into account all relevant circumstances.
[1][2010] NZCA 492.
In light of this Court’s judgment in R v Hessell,[2] we see no arguable basis for argument that a more structured approach should be taken to sentencing those who have been on electronically monitored bail. We are also satisfied that there is no basis for the proposed contention that there was a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances of this particular case.
[2][2010] NZSC 135; [2010] 24 CRNZ 966 (SC).
Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Dean McArthur Keown, who appealed against his sentence for drug charges. The Court of Appeal had already considered his case, and now Keown sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the Court of Appeal’s decision. The primary issue for the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly allowed time for electronically monitored bail in determining Keown's sentence. The Court of Appeal had followed precedent by adopting a flexible approach to sentencing, taking into account all relevant circumstances, rather than adopting a more structured approach.

The Supreme Court found that there was no arguable basis for contending that a more structured approach should be used, as established in the case of R v Hessell. The Court was also satisfied that there was no basis for the argument that a miscarriage of justice had occurred in this particular case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Keown's application for leave to appeal.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no ground for appeal and thus dismissed the application. This decision reinforces the existing sentencing approach for those on electronically monitored bail and maintains the flexibility allowed by the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established