R v Keen - [2015] NZHC 3066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2015-076-000171 [2015] NZHC 3066

THE QUEEN

v

DIONYSIA PEARL DAMARA KEEN

Hearing: 4 December 2015

Appearances:

M A Beattie for the Crown
D I Brown for the Respondent

Judgment:

4 December 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF NATION J

[1] You may remain seated Ms Keen while I go through my remarks.

[2] I need to say that although you have received a sentence indication, it is important that I explain the basis on which the sentence is ultimately imposed in this forum which is now public. So, you are going to hear me say a lot of what you already heard from Justice Gendall but it is important that I necessarily go through all those matters.

[3] Ms Keen, you pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery. Robbery involves theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence. Aggravated robbery involves robbery while armed with a weapon. The maximum penalty for aggravated
robbery is 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v KEEN [2015] NZHC 3066 [4 December 2015]

[4] On 18 February this year, you picked up the main offender, James Eddington, from an address in Timaru. You were using your vehicle. At approximately 2.18 pm, you sent a text message to another person saying “got anyone I can go rob LOL”. At around 4.40 pm, you and Mr Eddington parked approximately 25 metres from the Highfield Mall. Mr Eddington went into the Mall. You waited in the car. Inside the New Zealand Post Shop there were a number of customers and three staff members. Mr Eddington partially covered his face with a t-shirt. He went up to a 15 year old staff member at the counter, pulled a knife from his pants and demanded she hand over money to him. That staff member and another were frightened, ran out the back of the shop and hid. He demanded money from a third staff member who had approached him showing her his knife. While she was trying to get some money together, he walked around the shop holding the knife, making five customers in the store kneel down on the floor. He also demanded the staff member open a safe so she could give him some more money. She was unable to do so. Eventually he was handed approximately $2,385 in cash before running from the store.

[5] When Mr Eddington ran from the store, you were waiting for him in the car. The two of you then drove off. Later that day, at about 7.00 pm, you drove the car with Mr Eddington to Fairlie. You parked on the footpath beside the BP service station. Mr Eddington left the vehicle carrying a .22 calibre rifle. He ran across the BP forecourt and into the building. Inside there were two staff members and a customer. When inside, he pointed the rifle at the customer and told him to get down. He then pointed the rifle at the staff member and demanded cash. After being…

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 Keen

Details

AGLC: R v Keen [2015] NZHC 3066
Case: [2015] NZHC 3066
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dionysia Pearl Damara Keen was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery. The matter was heard in the High Court at Timaru, before the Honourable Justice Nation. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Ms Keen, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the crimes, the degree of her involvement, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The court found that Ms Keen's involvement in the robberies was significant, as she drove the main offender to the locations where the crimes were committed and provided him with practical support. The robberies involved the use of weapons, causing severe terror and trauma to the victims. Despite her claims of being under the influence of drugs and her limited direct involvement in the actual robberies, the court held her responsible for her actions. The court also took into account Ms Keen's genuine remorse, her pregnancy, and her previous non-violent convictions when determining the sentence.

The court sentenced Ms Keen to two years and nine months in prison, with a 10% reduction due to her pregnancy and a 20% credit for her guilty pleas. The court also ordered the confiscation of her vehicle and required her to pay $150 in reparation. Given her conviction for aggravated robbery, the court issued a three strikes warning, informing Ms Keen of the severe consequences of committing another serious violent offence in the future.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of two years and nine months in prison for Ms Keen, while also ordering the confiscation of her vehicle and requiring her to pay reparation. The court further issued a three strikes warning, highlighting the severe consequences of any future serious violent convictions.

Orders