Keeley v R [2014] NSWCCA 139

Keeley v R [2014] NSWCCA 139

The sentencing Judge did not err in findings of limited premeditation and reduced intoxication, these findings being open on the evidence, nor in structuring partially accumulated sentences for repeated sexual assaults as each constituted distinct serious criminality. The sentences imposed, while substantial, reflected the gravity of the offences and relevant considerations; they were not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Daniel Paul Keeley; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales – Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Hearing and Final Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Aggravated Robbery, Objective Seriousness of Offence, Sentencing Discretion, Premeditation, Intoxication, Manifest Excess, Double Punishment, Accumulation and Concurrency of Sentences, Totality Principle, General Deterrence, Specific Deterrence, Risk of Reoffending, Form 1 Offences
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Aggravated Robbery Objective Seriousness of Offence Sentencing Discretion Premeditation Intoxication +8 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Paul Keeley

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales – Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Hearing and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing Judge made factual findings (premeditation/intoxication) lacking an adequate evidentiary foundation
  2. 2 Whether partially accumulated sentences resulted in double punishment contrary to law
  3. 3 Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or plainly unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing Judge did not err in findings of limited premeditation and reduced intoxication, these findings being open on the evidence, nor in structuring partially accumulated sentences for repeated sexual assaults as each constituted distinct serious criminality. The sentences imposed, while substantial, reflected the gravity of the offences and relevant considerations; they were not manifestly excessive or plainly unjust. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.