Citation: R v McKeon [2026] NSWDC 72
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 March 2026
Judge(s): Mahony SC DCJ
Background
The offender, born in 1963, was sentenced for one count of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon and in company, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment with no standard non-parole period.
On 28 March 2024, the offender and a co-offender entered a jewellery shop in Lane Cove wearing balaclavas, having been observed on CCTV casing the area beforehand. While the co-offender confronted the shop owner, demanded property and struck him, the offender stood near the entrance holding what appeared to be a black pistol, pointing it around the store. Five people were present, including two children aged 8 and 11. The younger child fled the shop screaming, while the 11-year-old attempted to leave but was briefly blocked by the offender, who told the child "No. You're not moving." The co-offender ultimately stole a Swatch watch valued at $200–$300, and the pair fled to a waiting car. The entire incident lasted 18 seconds.
At the time of the offence, the offender was on parole in respect of a prior conviction for robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. He had been released on parole in February 2024, but his parole was ultimately revoked effective from 7 May 2024. He served the balance of that parole period until 16 September 2025 and has been on remand for the index offence since 17 September 2025. His criminal history extends back to the Children's Court in 1980, and his custodial records show he had been incarcerated for most of his adult life from 1985 for offences of dishonesty, violence, drug offences and motor vehicle offences.
Legal Issues
- What is the appropriate sentence for armed robbery in company (s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900), having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence?
- What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his extensive criminal history, lifelong institutionalisation, childhood trauma (including sexual abuse), diagnosed mental health conditions (Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD), and longstanding heroin addiction?
- What is the relevance of the offender committing the offence while on parole for a similar offence?
- To what extent do the offender's mental health conditions provide a causal nexus with the offending, and how does that affect sentencing considerations (including general deterrence and moral culpability)?
- What is the offender's risk of recidivism and prospect of rehabilitation, given his history and the psychological evidence?
Decision
The published portion of the sentencing remarks sets out the factual basis for sentence and the offender's subjective case in considerable detail, though the full text — including the judge's ultimate reasoning on penalty and the sentence imposed — is not available in the truncated extract. The following summarises the evidence and considerations that informed the court's approach.
The offence was objectively serious. It involved a masked, armed invasion of a small retail premises, the terrorising of staff and customers — including two young children — and the brandishing of what appeared to be a firearm. The offender's role, while not the principal actor in the physical confrontation with the shop owner, was significant: he controlled access to the shop and wielded the apparent weapon. The offence was committed while the offender was on parole for a materially similar offence, which is an aggravating factor under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
The offender's subjective case was substantial. He was adopted at six weeks of age and raised in an environment of domestic violence and alcohol abuse. He was sexually and physically assaulted by teachers as a teenager and began using heroin at 15, an addiction that persisted for approximately 43 years. His criminal history and time in custody — including a 24-year sentence imposed in 2001, with four years spent in the Supermax program — confirmed his description as "totally institutionalised." A psychological report (Mr Rababi, February 2026) diagnosed Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD and opined that the offending was significantly influenced by these conditions, exacerbated by cumulative grief from three recent bereavements, including the death of the offender's mentor and closest friend shortly before the offence. A separate psychiatric report (Dr Allnutt, May 2023) confirmed a constellation of post-traumatic stress, depressive and anxiety symptoms linked to childhood sexual abuse. The offender had also completed a violent offenders' therapeutic program in 2009.
The psychological evidence placed the offender's risk of recidivism in the "medium to high" range — an improvement from the purely historical assessment of "high" — contingent on maintaining sobriety and ongoing psychological treatment. The court was also presented with evidence of the offender's genuine capacity for productive community life: he had maintained employment for over a year following his 2022 release, volunteered in Lismore after the floods, and achieved sustained sobriety for a prolonged period — the longest he had spent outside custody. His sister deposed to her commitment to supporting him upon release.
The evidence suggested that the offending occurred in a context of acute psychological distress following the death of his mentor, the loss of housing and employment, and the resurgence of trauma-related symptoms connected to delayed proceedings regarding his childhood sexual abuse. These factors, while not excusing the conduct, were relevant to assessing moral culpability and the weight to be given to general deterrence, consistent with principles in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa and Veen v R [No. 2].
Orders Made
The full sentencing orders are not available in the truncated extract of the judgment. The court was required to impose a sentence for the single count of armed robbery in company under s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), taking into account pre-sentence custody from 17 September 2025.
Key Takeaways
-
Offending on parole for a similar offence was treated as a significant aggravating factor. The District Court weighed the offender's breach of the trust inherent in a parole order, particularly given that the index offence was of the same character as the offence for which parole had been granted.
-
Where mental health conditions bear a demonstrated causal nexus to the offending, moral culpability may be reduced and general deterrence tempered. The psychological evidence linked the offender's PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder to the circumstances of his offending, engaging principles from De La Rosa and Veen v R [No. 2].
-
Institutionalisation was recognised as a relevant sentencing consideration but did not operate as a cap on the sentence. The Court considered the offender's life history (decades of incarceration beginning in adolescence, rooted in childhood trauma and addiction) as a factor to be weighed, but held that it did not function as a ceiling on punishment for serious offending, consistent with Veen v R [No. 2].
-
Evidence of capacity for rehabilitation, even in a heavily entrenched offender, carried weight in the sentencing assessment. The District Court noted the offender's period of sustained employment, sobriety, and community engagement following his 2022 release, his longest period in the community, as relevant to rehabilitation prospects despite the subsequent relapse into offending.
-
In distinguishing historical from dynamic risk factors, the expert risk assessment provided contextualised evidence that informed the Court's analysis. The psychologist's assessment moved from "high" on a purely historical basis to "medium to high" when accounting for the offender's demonstrated capacity for change, and the Court considered this nuanced evaluation in determining the appropriate sentence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases:
- Barnes v R [2022] NSWCCA 40
- Da Silva v R [2024] NSWCCA 216
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
- Veen v R [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465