R v McKeon [2004] NSWCCA 232

R v McKeon [2004] NSWCCA 232

The appeals against conviction failed because the challenged jury-discharge applications were correctly refused or adequately met by directions, and the circumstantial evidence in both trials was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeals failed because no error of principle or fact was shown, the totality principle had not been misapplied, and the aggregate sentence, though very stern, was not shown to be manifestly excessive having regard to the number and gravity of the offences and the fact that they were committed while the appellant was on parole.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentences granted but appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Armed Robbery' 'stealing Motor Vehicles' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'joint Trial of Co Accused' 'application to Discharge Jury' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Armed Robbery' 'stealing Motor Vehicles' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'joint Trial of Co Accused' 'application to Discharge Jury' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in declining to discharge the jury in the first trial because alleged prejudice to the appellant could not be cured by directions.' 'Whether the verdicts in the first trial were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in declining to discharge the jury in the second trial because alleged prejudice to the appellant could not be cured by directions.' 'Whether the verdicts in the second trial were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence.' 'Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted and whether the sentences imposed were affected by error or were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals against conviction failed because the challenged jury-discharge applications were correctly refused or adequately met by directions, and the circumstantial evidence in both trials was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeals failed because no error of principle or fact was shown, the totality principle had not been misapplied, and the aggregate sentence, though very stern, was not shown to be manifestly excessive having regard to the number and gravity of the offences and the fact that they were committed while the appellant was on parole.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentences granted but appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['That the appeals against conviction should be dismissed.' 'That leave to appeal against the sentences imposed should be granted, but that the appeals should be dismissed.']