Keat v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 1961

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HER DAUGHTER PURSUANT TO S 145 OF THE ARMED FORCES DISCIPLINE ACT 1971
AND S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV 2013-485-8648 [2014] NZHC 1961

BETWEEN KEVIN JOHN KEAT Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 30 April 2014

Court:

Mallon J

Judge J Billington QC Judge D McGregor

Counsel:

M Bott and S Taylor for the Appellant
P K Feltham and Major A Taylor for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A. The appeal against convictions is allowed.

B. The convictions on charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 are quashed.

C. We seek submissions from counsel as to whether any further orders are sought from us and in particular whether an order referring the charges
back for a retrial is sought.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

KEAT v R [2014] NZHC 1961 [19 August 2014]

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ [1] The charges ......................................................................................................................................................... [5] Charges on which Keat was convicted ............................................................................................................ [5]
The Defence Force Order ................................................................................................................................ [7] The Act .......................................................................................................................................................... [13] Relevant time periods .................................................................................................................................... [16]

The evidence ...................................................................................................................................................... [17]

2008: Auckland ............................................................................................................................................. [18]
December 2008 to January 2009: Wellington ............................................................................................... [20]
February to August 2009: Timor ................................................................................................................... [22]
September 2009 to March 2010: return from Timor ...................................................................................... [25] September to November 2010: AC Pers appointment ................................................................................... [29] December 2010: motel encounter.................................................................................................................. [46]
2011 ............................................................................................................................................................... [49]
December 2011: telephone call ..................................................................................................................... [61] Subsequent events.......................................................................................................................................... [67] Charge 1 (failing to comply with orders): mens rea....................................................................................... [99] The charge ..................................................................................................................................................... [99] Some general principles .............................................................................................................................. [101] Mens rea required for this offence ............................................................................................................... [107]
The elements of the offence.......................................................................................................................... [110] Admission of Facts .......................................................................................................................................[111] Counsels’ addresses ..................................................................................................................................... [112]
The Judge’s summing up.............................................................................................................................. [115] The aide memoire ........................................................................................................................................ [119] Our assessment............................................................................................................................................ [121]
Charge 2 (unprofessional close relationship): mens rea .............................................................................. [137] The charge ................................................................................................................................................... [137] The elements of the offence.......................................................................................................................... [138] Admission of Facts ...................................................................................................................................... [139] Counsels’ addresses ..................................................................................................................................... [140] The Judge’s summing up.............................................................................................................................. [142] The aide memoire ........................................................................................................................................ [145] Our assessment............................................................................................................................................ [147]
Charge 4 (prejudice to service discipline): mens rea ................................................................................... [152] The charge ................................................................................................................................................... [152] Wrong charge and double charging?........................................................................................................... [153] The elements of the offence.......................................................................................................................... [155] The Admission of Facts ............................................................................................................................... [161] Counsels’ addresses ..................................................................................................................................... [162] The Judge’s summing up.............................................................................................................................. [165] The aide memoire ........................................................................................................................................ [167] Our assessment............................................................................................................................................ [173]
Charge 8 (prejudice to service discipline): mens rea ................................................................................... [182] The charge ................................................................................................................................................... [182] Wrong charge and double charging?........................................................................................................... [183] The elements of the offence.......................................................................................................................... [184] The Admission of Facts ............................................................................................................................... [185] Counsels’ addresses ..................................................................................................................................... [186] The Judge’s summing up.............................................................................................................................. [187] The aide memoire ........................................................................................................................................ [188] Our assessment............................................................................................................................................ [190]
Charge 5 (using threatening language): mens rea ........................................................................................ [194] The charge ................................................................................................................................................... [194] The elements of the offence.......................................................................................................................... [195] Counsels’ addresses ..................................................................................................................................... [199] The Judge’s summing up.............................................................................................................................. [200] The aide memoire ........................................................................................................................................ [202] Our assessment............................................................................................................................................ [203]
The Judge’s hand out ..................................................................................................................................... [204] Was a lies…

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 Keat v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Keat v The Queen [2014] NZHC 1961
Case: [2014] NZHC 1961
Decision Date: 19 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Keat v The Queen, the Court Martial Appeal Court of New Zealand heard an appeal against the convictions and sentence of Commodore Kevin Keat, a former officer of the Royal New Zealand Navy. Keat was dismissed from service for failing to disclose a close personal relationship, failing to bring the relationship to an end, and for using threatening, insulting, and provocative language to the woman with whom he was said to have the close personal relationship. The appeal against the convictions was based on alleged errors in the Judge's summing up to the Military Members before they retired to consider their verdicts. The main alleged error related to the mens rea element of each charge (that is, the state of mind held by Keat that the prosecution was required to prove). A number of other matters were also raised. On the sentence appeal, the main submission was that it was manifestly excessive to dismiss Keat for the offending on which he was convicted. A number of criticisms were also made as to the approach adopted in reaching that sentence.

The Court found that the Judge did not correctly direct the Military Members on the mens rea (state of mind) requirements of the charges. The criminal law requires proof that a person not only did or omitted to do an act which constitutes an offence, but also that they did so with a "guilty mind" (that is, the conduct constituting the essential factual elements of a charge was intentional). If there was evidence on which the Military Members could conclude as reasonably possible the absence of this intention then the Judge needed to direct the Military Members to consider this. The Court was unable to say that the verdicts would have been the same if the Military Members were directed to consider the mens rea component of charges 1, 2, 4 and 8. The evidence required that the Judge direct the Military Members on the proper use they could make of any proven lie. This direction was required because of the possibility that lies can be given undue weight in assessing a person's guilt. In this case the prosecution relied on alleged inconsistencies in aspects of Keat's evidence. The Military Members were, in effect, invited to consider that Keat had not given truthful evidence about these matters. There was a danger that the Military Members would conclude that, if Keat was lying about a particular encounter in December 2010, it must have been because he knew his relationship was a "close personal relationship" requiring disclosure. This was not, however, the only possible inference that could be drawn. A key part of the defence's case was that the complainant was a difficult and intimidating person. This was relevant to the credibility of her account of the relationship. It was also relevant to Keat's explanation for his continued significant contact with her. The Judge did not explain the relevance of this evidence from the defence perspective.

The Court concluded that in light of these matters the convictions were unsafe. The Court quashed the convictions on charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8. The Court did not deal with the sentence appeal as it found the convictions to be unsafe. The Court sought submissions from counsel as to whether any further orders were sought from the Court, and in particular whether an order referring the charges back for a retrial was sought.

Orders