R v Keenan [2017] NZDC 3514 (22 February 2017)

Last Updated: 21 June 2017

_{EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPRESSION APPLIED.}

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

CRI-2016-009-006441 [2017] NZDC 3514

THE QUEEN

v

_{CHRISTOPHER LANCE KEENAN}

Hearing:	22 February 2017
Appearances:	N Pointer for the Crown J Lovely for the Defendant
Judgment:	22 February 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE T J GILBERT ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr Keenan, you are for sentence today in relation to eight charges. They include one of obtaining by deception, two charges of carrying out an indecent communication with a person under 16, two charges of causing harm by posting digital communications and three charges of engaging in sexual conduct with people under 16 years. The maximum penalties in relation to these offences range between two years and 10 years’ imprisonment.

[2] I gave you a sentence indication on 12 September last year which you immediately accepted and then pleaded guilty. At that time I gave you a first strike warning.

[3] My sentence indication was for a total of seven years’ imprisonment with the

possibility of a further modest reduction, depending on the contents of the pre-sentence report and any other material provided to me.

R v CHRISTOPHER LANCE KEENAN [2017] NZDC 3514 [22 February 2017]

[4] The lead offences are undoubtedly the charges of engaging in sexual conduct with a young person. Through Facebook you enticed two 13 year old girls, sometime between [dates deleted] 2015, to [location deleted] in the middle of the day. You gave them cigarettes. Both of those girls performed oral sex on you followed by unprotected sexual intercourse. Somehow you videoed part of that encounter and later sent it to at least one of the girls in order to try and pressure her into providing naked images of herself.

[5] The second of the girls sent you naked images of herself on the promise of large amounts of money. A month after the first encounter, that second girl, referred to as Victim E in the summary of facts, was again contacted by you. Once more you enticed her across town and she performed oral sex on you during which you became rough and forced her head on to your penis.

[6] The remaining charges are different in nature on the face of it, but an enquiry into the facts reveals that they are similar in theme. In essence you used the internet in various forms to contact girls. Generally you would pressure, or try to pressure, them into providing explicit photos or movies on false pretexts. Where resistance to that was shown you would make threats of various types.

[7] Indeed you developed a second Facebook profile to work in tandem with your primary profile in order to leverage up the pressure on these young girls. Where images had been provided, that fact was used to try and coerce further such images; for example you would suggest that the images had been loaded into the deep web or dark web and/or sold on to pornographic sites for money.

[8] The two charges of indecent communication with a young person carry maximum sentences of three years’ imprisonment. These charges involve two separate victims. In relation to both you tried to obtain sexual images of girls who were under 16. Fortunately neither of these victims provided images to you and were able to withstand what was very considerable pressure in the form of threats, including violent threats.

[9] The remaining two charges of causing harm by posting digital communications carry with them a similar theme. The maximum penalty on those charges is two years’ imprisonment.

[10] I have received a number of victim impact statements and it is very clear to me that what you did has had a significant effect on the young women that you offended against.

[11] When I gave you a sentence indication last year I articulated individual starting points for each of the groups of offences that I have been through. After applying what is known as a totality discount, the aggregate starting point that I adopted was nine years’ imprisonment and you, of course, accepted that.

[12] However, since that time you have had a change of counsel and Mr Lovely has provided me with a recent High Court case which he says has real similarities to your own offending. That case is R v Salmon.1 I was previously unaware of that case at the time I gave the sentence indication because it had not been put before me.

[13] Whilst every case has its own unique characteristics, I agree with Mr Lovely that there are some real similarities between Mr Salmon’s offending and your own. In some ways yours was worse, but in some ways his was worse. In the Salmon case, Mander J adopted an overall starting point of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment before turning to individual characteristics relating to Mr Salmon.

[14] Having read that case, and re-read the original submissions relating to you, I consider it appropriate to moderate the starting point I indicated in September to mirror that which was adopted by Mander J. That is a starting point of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.

[15] Although there are differences, I am satisfied in light of that High Court decision that seven years nine months reflects the overall criminality in your conduct

_{and maintains consistency as between similar cases. I note that that as a starting}

1 R v Salmon [2015] NZHC 2808

point, that is still somewhat higher than what was submitted to me by the Crown as appropriate in September last year.

[16] I now turn to your individual characteristics. In accordance with my sentence indication, your prior convictions justify an uplift. Whilst there is nothing identical in your past to what has occurred here, it is clear that you have offended dishonestly on many occasions. Dishonesty was a key feature of what happened in at least some of these offences that I am considering. Quite apart from that there are numerous other convictions. The uplift, as I indicated in September, will be six months.

[17] I turn now to personal mitigating features and the pre-sentence report which I have considered. Your past has been a difficult one. From the material I have seen you do regret your actions and you recognise and accept a need for treatment. Given the length of the sentence that I am going to impose upon you, you will have time to complete the Kia Marama Programme, assuming you are accepted on to it.

[18] Mander J in the Salmon case applied a two month discount for belated expressions of remorse and the beginnings of insight. In view of your background and your circumstances I will allow a three month discount. Putting all those calculations together brings me to an end point of eight years’ imprisonment.

[19] The final step is to then apply a discount for your guilty pleas. This recognises your acceptance of responsibility but also, importantly, you having spared your victims the ordeal of giving evidence. You are entitled to full credit for that which brings the sentence back to six years.

[20] I need to allocate the sentence across the various charges. On the three charges of having sexual connection with people aged under 16 years the sentence will be six years’ imprisonment. On charge 8767, obtaining by deception, the sentence will be two years’ imprisonment. On charge 8792, posting a digital communication, the sentence will be one year imprisonment. On charge 8769, second charge of posting a digital communication, the sentence will be one year imprisonment. On charge 8875, which is a charge of indecent communication with a young person, the sentence will be one year imprisonment. On charge 8768, which

is a further charge of having an indecent communication with a young person, the sentence will be one year imprisonment.

[21] All of those sentences will be served concurrently, so the total sentence will be six years’ imprisonment. But those sentences will be served cumulatively on the sentence which you are currently serving. I am told you have around about three weeks left to run on the sentence that was imposed by Judge MacAskill last year. So the six years will sit on top of the remaining three weeks or so that you have left to run on your current sentence. The conditions of release will be set by the New Zealand Parole Board.

[22] As a result of convictions on some of these matters you are now a registerable offender under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. The Registrar will give you a written notice shortly setting out your reporting obligations under that law and the consequences of breaching those obligations. When you are released from prison you will be given a further notice, again setting out your obligations.

T J Gilbert

District Court Judge