Keil v R

The three appellants, Levi Keil, Ivory Paul and Josephine Reo, appeal against their convictions for offences relating to the wounding of Boyce Taumata and the injuring of Dio Haronga with intent to cause them grievous bodily harm. Mr Paul also appeals against his sentence. The appeal against conviction raises issues about the availability of self-defence where multiple parties are charged with offending and unreasonableness of the verdicts. The appeal against sentence focuses on whether the Judge erred in failing to discount sufficiently the cultural and mitigating factors presented in the s 27 report. The appeal against conviction is dismissed and the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

In relation to the appeal against conviction, the Court found that the Judge was correct not to allow self-defence to go to the jury even if his reasons were wrong. The Judge's erroneous hypothetical directions related to a defence which was never available to any defendant and therefore could not have materially affected the result. The jury's verdicts against each appellant were found to be discrete and reasonable. Finally, the appeal against sentence was dismissed because the Judge had given appropriate weight to Mr Paul's s 27 report within the overall scheme of the Sentencing Act and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.