R v Keegan [2022] NSWDC 715

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Keegan [2022] NSWDC 715 Hearing dates: 12 December 2022 Date of orders: 12 December 2022 Decision date: 12 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of four years and six months. Non‑parole period of two years and six months. Catchwords: CRIME – Aggravated break & enter commit serious indictable offence - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company of other(s) SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence- early guilty plea - home invasion - in company - no apparent planning - serious harm inflicted - weapon used - good Samaritan assaulted – offender's deprived background- young immature offender - how to break a pattern of behaviour of "getting drunk and doing dumb shit," leading the commission of crimes, arrest and gaol – special circumstances Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Category: Sentence Parties: Ryan Keegan (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions Representation: Solicitors: Mr M Kwan (for the offender) Mr T George (for Director of Public Prosecutions) File Number(s): 2012/00367057

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction 1. When he was before the Local Court, Ryan Keegan, indicated that he would plead guilty to two very serious offences: 1. Aggravated break, enter and commit the serious indictable offence of reckless wounding; with a circumstance of aggravation being he was in company. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and for an offence that, taking into account only objective features, falls in the middle of the range, Parliament fixed a standard non‑parole period of 5 years: s 112 Crimes Act 1900. 2. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm while being in company. That offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment: s 59(2) Crimes Act. That offence that occurred in the same premises 1. Keegan's adhered to those pleas today. His pleas indicated his acceptance of responsibility for the offence. The material before me also indicates that he has shown some insight into his offending. Matters I can and will consider. The utilitarian value of the guilty pleas requires that I reduce each of the two sentences I will indicate by 25%. I will take care that the process of accumulation does not undermine that benefit. 2. Although the two offences arise out of the same developing set of circumstances there must be some additional punishment to reflect the two crimes, and the fact there were two victims. I must fix a just and appropriate sentence for both matters taking into account all sentencing principles. The aggregate sentence I impose must properly reflect the totality of the crimes committed and all relevant matters in mitigation. I must indicate sentences that reflect what was done and the offender's personal circumstances. It is accepted that can only be done by imposing a term of imprisonment. 3. That term must take guidance from the maximum penalties and standard non‑parole periods that apply. I must give content to the standard non‑parole period but there are a number of factors which play upon this discretionary decision. The first is an understanding of what was done and the seriousness of what was done and there are agreed facts before the Court.