Keen v R - [2014] NZCA 299

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA787/2013
[2014] NZCA 299

BETWEEN	HINEMOA MARGARET KEEN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 June 2014
Court:	French, Venning and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	R G Glover for Appellant P D Marshall for Respondent
Judgment:	3 July 2014 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Ms Keen pleaded guilty in the District Court to:
(a)one charge of arson;
(b)three charges of burglary;
(c)three charges of attempted burglary;
(d)two charges of theft; and
(e)one charge of escaping custody.
She was sentenced by Judge Garland to a term of imprisonment of three years and two months.[1]
[1]R v Keen DC Christchurch CRI-2009-009-11893, 6 November 2013.
She now appeals the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

Factual background

In the early hours of 5 August 2012, Ms Keen went to a motel in Christchurch. She walked from unit to unit, trying doors in an attempt to gain access. She found one door that was unlocked and entered, waking the occupant. She then rifled through the occupant’s clothing and removed his wallet.
A few weeks later, on 2 September, she returned to the same motel just after midnight and again walked from unit to unit looking for one that was unlocked. She entered one unit and sat on the occupant’s bed, asking if he was “Nate”. The occupant asked her to leave but as she left she took his wallet. Ms Keen then entered another unit and stole a laptop valued at $1,600.
Ms Keen returned to the motel for a third time the following month. She again attempted to access several units but was unsuccessful.
Instead, she entered a campervan and removed a box of beer before setting the campervan on fire as a result of lighting a cigarette lighter. She fled the scene, leaving the campervan, valued at $27,000, in flames. It was damaged beyond repair. The contents of the campervan, worth $2,000, were destroyed. A car parked next to the campervan was also heat damaged.
Ms Keen was arrested and charged with attempted burglary in relation to the unsuccessful attempts to gain access to the units, burglary in relation to the units she did enter, one charge of theft relating to the stolen beer and one charge of arson for recklessly setting fire to the campervan.
She pleaded guilty to all charges and was remanded on bail pending sentence.
While on bail, Ms Keen was given permission to travel to Invercargill for a funeral. During the trip, she entered a service station and stole $160 from the cash register.
Having been arrested for theft, Ms Keen was en route to the Invercargill Police Station when she complained of being unwell. The police took her to the hospital, where she took the opportunity to abscond. She was later apprehended and charged with escaping from police custody.
Ms Keen subsequently pleaded guilty to the additional…

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 Keen v R

Details

AGLC: Keen v R [2014] NZCA 299
Case: [2014] NZCA 299
Decision Date: 3 July 2014 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hinemoa Margaret Keen, the appellant, against The Queen, the respondent, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant for various criminal offences. Keen had pleaded guilty to arson, burglary, attempted burglary, theft, and escaping custody, and was sentenced to three years and two months' imprisonment by the District Court. Keen appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court found that the appellant had a significant history of dishonesty-related offences and had committed the current crimes while on bail for another matter. The court held that the sentencing judge's reasoning was sound, and the sentence was within the appropriate range. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the sentencing judge correctly identified the aggravating factors, if the uplift for previous convictions was excessive, and whether sufficient account was taken of the appellant's personal circumstances and guilty pleas. The court examined the facts of the case, the sentencing principles, and the arguments presented by both parties before concluding that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court found that the appellant's criminal history justified an uplift for previous convictions, and the letters of support did not warrant a greater discount for the guilty pleas. The court also determined that the appellant's health issues and the impact of imprisonment on her employment and housing were considered by the sentencing judge. The sentence was deemed to be within the appropriate range, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders