R v Keepa - [2019] NZHC 3042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-096-2542

[2019] NZHC 3042

THE QUEEN

v

JAKE BOU-DINE KEEPA

Appearances:
P K Feltham for the Crown

S Thistoll and A C M R Jeffares for Mr Keepa

Sentencing:

20 November 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRICE J

Background1

[1] Mr Keepa, you were disqualified from driving for six months on 8 August 2018 by the District Court. You were also monitored via a radio frequency bracelet while on a community detention curfew. This meant you were not allowed to leave your address from the hours of 7.00 pm to 7.00 am.

[2] On Friday, 14 September 2018 you were at your home address in Lower Hutt. An associate of yours, Mr Pay, came to your address at about 7.40 pm. He has been known to you for a number of years and you are both members of the Mongrel Mob.

[3] Mr Pay told you that he had been beaten up and his property had been taken. He had cuts to his arms and he was bloody and bruised. It was clear he had been in a

1 This sentencing was delivered orally on 20 November 2019. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.

R v KEEPA [2019] NZHC 3042 [20 November 2019]

fight. Mr Pay, in fact, had just fatally stabbed the victim in this case and he had been stabbed in the chest. Mr Pay had walked to your house for help.

[4] You and Mr Pay both got into a car which was parked outside your house. That car was in fact your fathers. You drove Mr Pay down to the scene of the stabbing and you were on a grass berm near where Mr Fonoilaepa lay. You spoke to several people who had stopped nearby to offer assistance to the victim. You demanded your “bro’s patch”. You remained there only for a short while before driving away from the scene.

[5] A few minutes later you returned to the scene for a second time. You again pulled up near the victim who was being aided by a member of the public. You asked a member of the public “where is the bro’s patch” again and that “he has been beaten up”. The member of the public told you that the victim was dead. This appears to have been the first moment you knew that he had died. After hearing this, you drove home.

[6] A short time later you drove Mr Pay back to the scene, this time pulling up near where the fight began. You waited for Mr Pay while he got out of the car and retrieved items that had been dropped during the fight. While this was happening police began to arrive on the scene.

[7] The first police car arrived and parked across the road from you with its lights flashing. When you saw the car, you yelled “Let’s go,…

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 Keepa

Details

AGLC: R v Keepa [2019] NZHC 3042
Case: [2019] NZHC 3042
Decision Date: 20 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Keepa, the defendant, Jake Bou-Dine Keepa, was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder and driving while disqualified. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and other relevant factors. The defendant's role in the offence involved driving the principal offender, Mr Pay, to the scene of the crime, assisting him in evading the police, and helping him dispose of incriminating evidence. The court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated a persistent course of conduct designed to protect Mr Pay from arrest and evidence clean-up, including the likely murder weapon. The court determined that the defendant's offending was more serious than in similar cases, and a starting point of 14 months' imprisonment was appropriate. Adjustments to the starting point were made for the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a discount of 25%, and for the fact that the defendant was driving while serving a sentence of community work for driving while suspended. The final sentence imposed on the defendant was 11 months' imprisonment for being an accessory after the fact to murder, six months' disqualification from driving, and one month's imprisonment for driving while disqualified, to run concurrently with the 11 months' imprisonment.

The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, employment, and family situation. The defendant was 27 years old and had been working as a labourer on Housing Corporation properties. However, he would be unable to return to this work for a period if he pleaded guilty or was convicted due to a stand-down period before being able to do contract work for the Government again. The defendant intended to return to his family home and care for his father, who had suffered from a brain aneurysm three years ago. The court took these factors into account when determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The court did not impose any release conditions on the defendant, as both counsel agreed that they were not necessary in this case.

Orders