R v Keats - [2021] NZHC 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2017-012-000746

[2021] NZHC 359

THE QUEEN

v

DWAYNE DOUGLAS KEATS

Hearing: 3 March 2021

Appearances:

C E R Power for the Crown

J A Westgate for the Defendant

Judgment:

3 March 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Keats, you can remain seated. There is a lot I have to say in sentencing you. You have already heard quite lengthy submissions from counsel but it is important that you listen to what I am saying and try to understand and appreciate what I am saying.

[2] I do tell all those who are in Court that you need to appreciate that I have had lengthy written submissions from counsel before today. I have had the detailed assessors’ reports. I have carefully read the detailed judgment of Judge Crosbie which explained the evidence that had been given in the case and his reasons for finding you guilty of the charges that I have to sentence you on. I have the brief pre-sentence report prepared by a probation officer and I also had the very detailed, thorough and compelling victim impact report. I was referred to a number of cases which counsel

R v KEATS [2021] NZHC 359 [3 March 2021]

suggested would be helpful to me in my sentencing exercise so I have considered those and have considered how they were relevant to my particular task.

The offending

[3] Dealing with your offending - these offences occurred between 2 February 2017 and 17 March 2017. You were then aged 43. You were on parole from a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment imposed on 12 March 2010 on conviction for sexual violation by rape on 15 May 2009.

[4]I will refer to the victim of your offending as F. You met F through your work.

[5] On 2 February 2017, you went to F’s house. You and F were sitting on the couch when you tried to kiss her. She attempted to keep you away from her but you brought her head forward so you could kiss her. You pulled her tights and nickers off while she was protesting. You forcibly raped her as she told you to stop. You pulled out before ejaculating and told her to put her mouth around your penis while you were standing in front of her. She performed oral sex on you then pulled away. You put your penis inside her again despite her protests. It was only when she said “please stop” that you did. You said you stopped only because she said “please”.

[6] On 27 February 2017, you were sitting inside a car at a lookout. You had moved to that location after other people and vehicles had arrived at a spot where you had been earlier. When in the car, you inserted your fingers into F’s vagina and said “you like that”. You then drove home with your fingers inside her.

[7] The Judge…

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 R v Keats

Details

AGLC: R v Keats [2021] NZHC 359
Case: [2021] NZHC 359
Decision Date: 3 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dwayne Douglas Keats was convicted by the District Court of multiple charges of sexual violation by rape, unlawful sexual connection, and indecent assault. The case came before Nation J in the High Court at Dunedin for sentencing. The court considered the Crown's submission for preventive detention and the defence's submission for a finite term of imprisonment. After considering the evidence, including the victim impact report, the court found that the defendant's offending was at the top of band 2 and at the bottom of band 3 of R v A M. The court decided on a finite term of imprisonment of 15 years with a minimum term of eight years. The court took into account the risk of reoffending and the potential for rehabilitation, ultimately deciding that a lengthy determinate sentence with the potential for an extended supervision order would provide adequate protection for society. The defendant was warned that failure to address the causes of his offending would likely result in a sentence of preventive detention if he reoffended.

Orders