R v Keegan - [2012] NZHC 3019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-088-2892 [2012] NZHC 3019

THE QUEEN

v

TONI MARIE KEEGAN

Hearing: 13 November 2012

Counsel: TL Nicholls for Crown
JS Day for Prisoner

Judgment: 13 November 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, P O Box 146, Whangarei
(Email: toddn@mwis.co.nz )
Mr JS Day, P O Box 225, Whangarei
(Email: jkgday@xtra.co.nz )

R V TONI MARIE KEEGAN HC WHA CRI-2012-088-2892 [13 November 2012]

[1] Ms Keegan, you appear for sentence on five counts of selling a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis, and four counts of offering to sell a Class C controlled drug, cannabis. Each of those counts carries a maximum sentence of eight years imprisonment. You entered guilty pleas in the District Court. The District Court Judge acceded to the Crown’s request to transfer the charges to this Court for sentence.

Background

[2] The offending was uncovered by a covert police operation that took place earlier this year. It revealed that you were operating, with some assistance from another it would seem, a tinny house from the house that you shared with your partner in suburban Whangarei.

[3] An undercover constable visited the house on a number of occasions in April and May. On four of those occasions he purchased a tinny - that is, cannabis wrapped in tinfoil – for $20. In the course of one of those visits, you advised him that you would sell him an ounce for $300. He said he would return the following day when he had enough money. When he came back, you arranged for your partner to go out and get the cannabis. You then texted the undercover constable when your partner returned and the undercover constable went to the house and completed the purchase.

[4] Further evidence of your commercial dealings in cannabis came from text messages that were intercepted between 15 April and 14 May this year. On 19, 20 and 24 April and 13 May, you sent by text to associates offers to sell half an ounce of cannabis for prices ranging from $140 to $170. On 7 May, and again in response to a reply to the text you sent out on 13 May, you made offers to supply one ounce of cannabis for prices of $340 and $350.

[5] When the operation terminated and your house was searched, a small quantity of cannabis was found and a bong. You admitted your offending. You said

you organised sales on behalf of a supplier who would deliver the larger quantities for on-sale.

Personal circumstances

[6] You were 18 when this offending occurred. You are now 19. You are a first offender. You had a disrupted and abusive childhood. I am told that you were sexually abused by your biological father at the age of eight and by your stepfather four years later. Child Youth and Family intervened. You were placed with your mother’s half sister. That turned out to be totally unsatisfactory…

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 Keegan

Details

AGLC: R v Keegan [2012] NZHC 3019
Case: [2012] NZHC 3019
Decision Date: 13 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Keegan involved Toni Marie Keegan, who was charged with five counts of selling a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis, and four counts of offering to sell a Class C controlled drug, cannabis. The offending was uncovered by a covert police operation in Whangarei, which revealed Keegan's involvement in the sale and offer to sell cannabis from a house she shared with her partner. Keegan entered guilty pleas in the District Court, which led to the transfer of the charges to the High Court for sentencing. The court considered various factors, including Keegan's age, her troubled childhood, her willingness to address the causes of her offending, and her role as a mother. The court determined that a starting point of two years and six months imprisonment was appropriate, but reduced this to two years to account for mitigating factors such as Keegan's youth, good character, and personal circumstances. A further reduction of three months was made, resulting in a sentence of 21 months imprisonment. After applying a 25% discount for the guilty plea, the final sentence was set at 16 months imprisonment. However, given that the sentence was less than two years, Keegan was eligible for a sentence of home detention instead. The court accepted that this was an appropriate sentence, considering Keegan's potential for rehabilitation and the support available to her.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the impact of mitigating factors such as the defendant's age and troubled background, and the eligibility for a sentence of home detention. The court's reasoning was guided by established sentencing principles and precedents, including the case of R v Terewi, which provides a framework for sentencing cannabis-related offences. The court also considered the Court of Appeal's decision in Churchward v R, which recognises the vulnerability of young offenders and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that a starting point of two years and six months was appropriate, but reduced this to two years to account for mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of 21 months imprisonment. After applying the discount for the guilty plea, the final sentence was set at 16 months imprisonment. However, given the eligibility for home detention, the court imposed a sentence of eight months home detention on each of the charges, with conditions set out in a report dated 29 October.

The court's judgment concluded with the formal sentencing of Keegan, who was sentenced to eight months home detention on each of the charges. The court wished Keegan the best and directed her to take full advantage of the support available to her, including counselling and educational courses, to facilitate her rehabilitation and ability to be a good and caring parent for her children.

Orders