McKeagg v The King - [2024] NZHC 3799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2024-463-000121

[2024] NZHC 3799

BETWEEN
TYRONE ARAMAHAU MCKEAGG

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 December 2024

Appearances:

A O B Spence for Appellant H J Speight for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

[Reasons judgment]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 12 December 2024 at 11.30 am
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date …………………………

MCKEAGG v R [2024] NZHC 3799 [12 December 2024]

[1]This judgment contains my reasons for dismissing this sentence appeal.

Introduction

[2]This is an appeal against sentence.

[3] In the District Court the appellant, Mr McKeagg, pleaded guilty to two charges of burglary,1 four charges of theft (under $500),2 one charge of shoplifting,3 one charge of being found without reasonable excuse in an enclosed yard,4 and one charge of possession of methamphetamine.5 He was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. The Judge granted leave for him to apply for substitution of his sentence if an appropriate address for home detention was found.

[4]On appeal, Mr McKeagg contends that his sentence was manifestly excessive.

[5]The Crown opposes the appeal.

[6] On 26 November 2024, the imprisonment sentence was substituted with a sentence of home detention. Mr McKeagg is currently serving that sentence, being home detention of six-and-a-half months, at his father’s residence. That sentence is now the final sentence for the purposes of the appeal.

The District Court decision

[7]The Judge recorded the summary of facts in respect of each charge as follows:6

[4] The summary of facts in respect of the Crown matter relates to the burglary of Tauranga Boys' College on 16 June 2023. At approximately 11.38 pm you were observed on the school's CCTV footage walking around the school before making your way back out of the school towards Thirteenth Avenue. A short time later you have then re-entered the school grounds through a gate on Thirteenth Avenue. You were with a second unknown person, and you were both carrying dark objects which appeared to be black

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a): maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.
2      Sections 219 and 223(d): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(d): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29(1)(b): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment, $2,000 maximum fine.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3): maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment and
$500 fine.
6      R v McKeagg [2024] NZDC 24498.

drums. You have cut through a wire fence leading into an enclosed locked storage shed under a building of classrooms. You have placed a piece of cloth fabric into the fuel tank of a quad bike and set that alight. You and your associate were then captured on CCTV running from the scene. The fire has caused extensive damage not only to the bike but to the storage area and the classrooms have also suffered…

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 McKeagg v The King

Details

AGLC: McKeagg v The King [2024] NZHC 3799
Case: [2024] NZHC 3799
Decision Date: 12 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, was called upon to adjudicate on the appeal of Tyrone Arahama McKeagg against his sentence. McKeagg, who had pleaded guilty to various charges including burglary, theft, shoplifting, and possession of methamphetamine, was originally sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. However, before the appeal was heard, this sentence had been substituted with a six-and-a-half months home detention sentence. The core issue before the court was whether the final sentence of home detention was manifestly excessive. The appellant contended that the District Court had erred in various aspects of its sentencing process and that a sentence of intensive supervision or community detention would have been more appropriate.

The court carefully reviewed the legal framework governing sentence appeals, emphasising that the appeal would only be allowed if the sentence imposed contained an error such that a different sentence should be imposed. The court further noted that a sentence would only be considered manifestly excessive if it deviated from accepted sentencing principles to a significant degree. The court found that the District Court had appropriately considered the nature and gravity of the offences, particularly the burglary of a school, in setting a higher starting point for the sentence. Although the court acknowledged some merit in the argument that the starting point may have been too high, it held that the final sentence of home detention, which incorporated significant reductions for guilty pleas and personal circumstances, was not manifestly excessive. The court also rejected the argument that a sentence of intensive supervision or community detention would have been more appropriate, finding that home detention offered McKeagg a rehabilitative opportunity consistent with the purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002.

In conclusion, the High Court found no error in the District Court’s final sentence of home detention and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the sentence was within the appropriate range and served the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders