Legal Research
Cases
Keil v The King

Keil v The King

Case [2025] NZHC 2533 2 September 2025

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2025-441-7

[2025] NZHC 2533

BETWEEN
PAUL PHILLIP KEIL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

CRI-2025-441-9

BETWEEN

MARK JOHN SHAW
Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 26 August 2025

Appearances:

S Jefferson for Appellant Keil R B Philip for Appellant Shaw M J M Mitchell for Respondent

Judgment:

2 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Following a judge-alone trial, Mr Shaw and Mr Keil (the appellants) were convicted of aggravated burglary,1 wounding with reckless disregard2 and unlawful possession of a firearm.3,4 Mr Shaw additionally pleaded guilty to possessing an

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a) and 66; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 188(2) and 66; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45; maximum penalty four years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Keil [2025] NZDC 3805.

KEIL v R [2025] NZHC 2533 [2 September 2025]

offensive weapon,5 cannabis,6 methamphetamine7 and methamphetamine utensils.8 Mr Shaw was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment and Mr Keil was sentenced to eight years and one month’s imprisonment.9

[2] The appellants appeal their convictions on the basis that the aggravated burglary charge under s 232(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 was not made out as the defendants did not possess a weapon when they entered the caravan. Instead, the appellants say they committed a burglary.10 In the event that the aggravated burglary charge is set aside or replaced with a lesser charge, such as burglary, the appellants appeal their respective sentences.

Background

The offending

[3] This factual summary is taken from the verdicts decision,11 sentencing notes12 and the victim’s evidence, which the Judge generally accepted.

[4] The victim lived in a caravan near a dwelling house that had operating CCTV cameras pointing in the direction of the caravan. Mr Keil and Mr Shaw were each known to the victim. The victim believed Mr Keil was responsible for taking his truck and had phoned the police to place a stolen alert on the vehicle. Separately, Mr Shaw and the victim were involved in a motor vehicle incident prior to this offending.

[5] At 7 am on the morning of 9 August 2023, the victim was asleep in his caravan. Mr Keil and Mr Shaw arrived at the victim’s address in a car. Mr Keil was driving and Mr Shaw was in the front passenger seat. They were disguised, wearing face coverings, clothing that covered their arms and legs, and gloves. On arrival at the property, Mr Keil turned the vehicle around in the driveway and backed up to the caravan. He left the vehicle running with the keys in the ignition as he approached the

5      Section 202A(4)(b); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
7      Section 7(1)(a) and (2)(a); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment.
8      Section 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
9      R v Keil [2025] NZDC…

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 Keil v The King

Details

AGLC: Keil v The King [2025] NZHC 2533
Case: [2025] NZHC 2533
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Phillip Keil and Mark John Shaw were convicted of aggravated burglary, wounding with reckless disregard, and unlawful possession of a firearm. They appealed their convictions and sentences. The appellants argued that the offence of aggravated burglary was not made out because Mr Keil did not possess the firearm when he entered the caravan. They contended that the offence of burglary was complete upon entry and, therefore, the offence of aggravated burglary could not be made out. The Crown argued that Mr Keil had the firearm with him when he entered the caravan, as it was reasonably available to him. The High Court held that the offence of aggravated burglary was made out because the firearm was reasonably available to Mr Keil when he entered the caravan. The Court rejected the proposition that the offence of burglary is complete upon entry and that the appellants could not be guilty of aggravated burglary if they did not have the weapon with them at the time of entry. The Court found that the offence of aggravated burglary was made out under section 232(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The appellants did not challenge their sentences except for Mr Keil, who appealed his sentence on the basis that the starting point was too high. The Court found that the starting point of eight and a half years’ imprisonment was within the available range and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders