R v Keefe - [2015] NZHC 2622

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S
203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2015-054-169 [2015] NZHC 2622

THE QUEEN

v

FRANCIS KANE KEEFE

Hearing: 23 October 2015

Appearances:

D Davies and M J Blaschke for the Crown
F Steedman for Mr Keefe

Sentence:

23 October 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1]      Mr Keefe you appear for sentencing on 24 charges. These charges comprise: (a)     one count of sexual violation by rape;
(b)      five counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection; (c)     three counts of attempted sexual violation by rape;
(d)      two counts of indecent assault;

(e) two counts of assault with intent to commit sexual violation;

R v KEEFE [2015] NZHC 2622 [23 October 2015]

(f) one count of aggravated burglary; (g) eight counts of burglary; and
(h) two counts of theft.

[2] The offending involved 10 incidents that occurred between 6 February 2013 and 15 January 2015 and involved entry into 10 homes. There were 10 victims overall, comprising eight victims of your sexual offending, and two victims of theft. The incidents mostly followed the same pattern, whereby you would gain entry into a house late at night or in the early hours of the morning, before proceeding to accost a young woman and sexually assault her. The victims were between 19 and 26 years old.

[3] You were convicted in the District Court on these charges following guilty pleas. You were given a first strike warning.

[4] You are being sentenced in this Court because a sentence of preventive detention may be imposed. That is the sentence the Crown submits is appropriate. Your counsel acknowledges that it appears to be appropriate. He has discussed this with you and notes that you appear to understand why that may be the most appropriate outcome. It is of course necessary for me to determine this.

Summary of facts

[5] I now summarise in sequence your offending.

The first incident1

[6] On 6 February 2013, at around 6.25 am, you gained entry into the first victim’s home. You had a knife with you. You entered the victim’s bedroom, approached her with the knife and told her not to scream. You placed its blade into
her hand and asked if she was going to listen to you. You rubbed your hand on her

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B (unlawful sexual connection); 129(1) (attempted sexual violation); and 232(1)(a) (aggravated burglary).

vagina, and inserted your fingers inside it. You attempted to insert your penis, which was flaccid, into her vagina, but were unable to do so. You left.

Incident two2

[7] On 20 February 2013, after 10 pm, you gained entry into the second victim’s home. She was in her bedroom watching a movie. You wore a mask of some kind and ran towards her. You lunged at her, and used your hands to pin her to the…

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 Keefe

Details

AGLC: R v Keefe [2015] NZHC 2622
Case: [2015] NZHC 2622
Decision Date: 23 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mallon J presided over the sentencing of Francis Kane Keefe, who faced 24 charges including sexual violation by rape, unlawful sexual connection, attempted sexual violation, indecent assault, assault with intent to commit sexual violation, aggravated burglary, burglary, and theft. The charges stemmed from ten incidents between February 2013 and January 2015, where Keefe entered the homes of victims late at night or early in the morning, often while they were asleep, and sexually assaulted them. Keefe had a prior history of burglary, assault, and other dishonesty offences but no previous sexual convictions. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering both a finite sentence and the possibility of preventive detention.

Mallon J first considered the appropriate finite sentence, starting with an 18-year imprisonment baseline for the sexual offences, adjusted upwards for the number of victims and the nature of the offences. After accounting for Keefe's guilty plea and other factors, the court settled on a finite sentence of 15 years, with a minimum period of eight years to be served before any possibility of parole. However, the court concluded that a finite sentence alone would not sufficiently protect the community given the seriousness and frequency of Keefe's offences.

Turning to preventive detention, Mallon J found that Keefe met the criteria for such a sentence. The court was satisfied that Keefe's history of escalating and predatory offending, the significant harm caused to the victims, and the high risk of reoffending warranted preventive detention. The psychiatrist's opinion that active risk management would be necessary for public protection further supported this decision. Mallon J determined that a minimum period of eight years should be imposed before any review by the Parole Board, reflecting Keefe's willingness to engage in treatment and the uncertain success of such programmes.

Mallon J ultimately sentenced Keefe to preventive detention, with a minimum term of eight years before any possibility of release. This decision aimed to protect the community from Keefe's substantial risk of reoffending in a similar manner.

Orders