R.

v Keeble (John Robert), 2001 WL 825706 (2001)

For educational use only

Regina v John Robert McGhie Keeble
No Substantial Judicial Treatment

Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Judgment Date
2 July 2001
No. 200006625/X3, Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Crim 1764

Court of Appeal Criminal Division

2001 WL 825706

Before: The Vice President ( Lord Justice Rose ) Mr Justice Bell and Mr Justice Silber

Monday 2nd July, 2001

Representation

Miss P Lynch QC appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

MR JUSTICE SILBER:

1.. On 19th September 2000, the appellant was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court of three offences. On 15th November
2000, he was given a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment on a count of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. On
a count of assaulting actual bodily harm, he received a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. On a third count of also assault
occasioning actual bodily harm, he was given a further sentence of 2 years' imprisonment. All the terms of imprisonment were
expressed to be consecutive and this gave a total sentence of six-and-a-half years' imprisonment. He appeals against sentence
with leave of the Single Judge.

2.. The appellant was a sadomasochist, who advertised in newspapers and on the Internet, describing himself, among other
things, as “dominant male”, “extreme master”, or “tall sadist”. As a result of his advertisements, he met a number of people. As a
result of a police investigation, he was arrested in August 1999 and police officers seized various sadomasochistic paraphernalia
and a quantity of videos showing that he had engaged in extreme acts of depravity, including acts of violence directed towards
women. The police also seized a computer, which had images of women tied up and a book with details of more than 200
women, together with treatment they were prepared to tolerate or desired.

3.. Count 1 refers to an assault on a woman, Miss L, who in January 1991 responded to one of the appellant's advertisements. At
that time, she was trying to recover from a broken marriage and her relationship with the appellant began as a normal one. She
began, however, to speak of her sadistic interest, most of which Miss L described as fantasy. Later, they engaged in consensual
masochistic behaviour, which she described in her evidence as “pushing back the barriers”. On a number of occasions, the
appellant expressed a wish to cut the woman and, on one occasion, she agreed. Miss L expected the cuts to be superficial and
two to her thigh were little more than scratches. A third cut was however made with a craft knife which was a deep 7 inch
cut from just below her shoulder to just below the elbow. It left an ugly and extensive jagged scar, and one reason why it was
unsightly was that Miss L had treated herself for it. She had not wanted to go to hospital as she felt unable to explain how
she came to have this wound. Miss L never thought that the appellant would cut her in such a way and she did not consent to
such an act. This incident signalled the end of their relationship, but they did remain friends and did remain in contact on the
telephone, having telephonic contact until July 1999.

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 1

R. v Keeble (John Robert), 2001 WL 825706 (2001)

4.. The second offence concerns injuries which were inflicted on a 57 year old woman, Miss P, whose marriage broken up in
Croydon and eventually they divorced in 1995. In autumn 1994, she responded to one of the appellant's advertisements and they
met for a drink. On later occasions, they spoke on the telephone and the appellant gradually revealed more about his interests.
Those discussions turned to sadomasochism and the woman began to write explicit letters to the appellant.

5.. In February 1995, Miss P and the appellant agreed to stay at a hotel in Epping. From previous discussions, Miss P knew that
there would be some acts of sadomasochistic sex, most of which was videoed by the appellant. The video showed the appellant
slapping the woman about the face, punching her upper arm and breast, kicking her body and vaginal area, strapping her with a
belt with a heavy buckle, whipping her with something looking like a cat-o-nine tails, pushing pins into her breasts and through
her nipples and pressing a bra studded with drawing pins against her breasts. Miss P suffered injuries to her back from the
buckle of the belt and the cat-o-nine tails. Afterwards consensual intercourse took place and the appellant left. Miss P did not
see the appellant again, although they did speak on the telephone.

6.. When he was interviewed about this offence the appellant said, in a prepared statement, that he had a loving, caring
relationship with this woman whom he had known for 18 months prior to the meeting. He admitted the meeting took place and
said all the acts had been consensual. He said that Miss P had brought the bra to the hotel and inserted the pins into it herself.

7.. The third charge relates to offences which were committed on a 16 year old girl, Miss M, who at the time when she met
the appellant, lived with her parents. She had come into contact with him after speaking to a friend on the Internet, and finding
her way into a chat room. They spoke three or four time before arranging to meet. Miss M's father drove her to the station,
believing she was meeting a young friend. When the appellant arrived, in his motorcar, she got in and he drove her to a quiet spot.
Consensual sexual activity took place there and, with the girl's consent, the appellant pushed five pins, about eight centimetres
long, into both her breasts which caused bleeding which lasted for 5 or 10 minutes. She told the appellant that she wanted him
to be her master. When the complainant took her coat from the back seat without asking permission, the appellant spat in her
face and said to her: “You should ask bitch”. He then drove her back to the station, having first removed the pins and he told
her he would telephone her later. The appellant did telephone, and asked the girl whether she was happy that he was now the
master. He explained the consequences of physical abuse she had to subject to, whips, blow torch and hitting and the girl said
she was not into “mutation”, as she called it, but it was up to him. The girl spoke to the appellant on six further occasions and
they arranged a further meeting. But before the meeting took place, the appellant was arrested.

8.. When interviewed the appellant, in a prepared statement, accepted the girl's account and emphasised that all acts happened
with the girl's consent.

9.. The appellant is 43 years of age and until these convictions, had been of previous good character.

10.. The judge imposed the sentences that I have just stated, and he explained that the evidence of the appellant was chilling in
the extreme and, as a result, it was necessary to impose a longer than normal sentences, under section 2(2)(b) of the Criminal
Justice Act 1891 . The judge was of the opinion that the desires of the appellant would remain unabated for many years and
he continued to present a very grave danger to women.

11.. Miss Lynch QC, who appears on behalf of the appellant, submits that the purpose of invoking section 2(2)(b) of the Criminal
Justice Act 1991 , which was then in force, was to protect the public from serious harm. She submits that there are no reasonable
grounds to view this appellant as a serious threat, physically or psychologically to the public, and she says that the learned judge
erred in passing longer than commensurate sentences on each of the counts by increasing the totality of the sentence by 3 years.

12.. It is worth recalling that terms of the provisions of what was section 2(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act but which has now
been re-enacted in section 80 of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, provide that:

“Where the sentence is for a violent or sexual offence the court may impose a sentence for such longer term not exceeding
the maximum as is in the opinion of the court is necessary to protect the public, from serious harm from the offender.”

13.. It follows from this that firs it is the task of the judge to assess whether it is necessary to impose such a sentence: “to protect
the public from serious harm from the offender”. Second, it is noteworthy that the triggering event is whether it is necessary
to protect the public it need not be the entire public and it can apply to a limited class of people, as is often what occurs in
the case of paedophiles.

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 2

R. v Keeble (John Robert), 2001 WL 825706 (2001)

14.. Miss Lynch says that the judge here was wrong in taking the view that the appellant presented a real and serious danger to
any women. There are important factors which have to be considered in evaluating that submission. First, in the case of Miss
M , she was 16 years old at the time and clearly was a vulnerable victim. Second, in the case of Miss L , she did not think that
the appellant would cut her in the way that he did and did not consent to such an act. Third, the judge had ample opportunity,
in this case, to come to his own conclusion, and views about the appellant, who had pleaded not guilty and had been tried in
front of him. Fourth, the pre-sentence report, says with emphasis added in paragraph 17:

“In my view Mr Keeble represents at a high risk of physical harm to vulnerable women, who chose to contact him about
a dominant submissive/submissive or sadomasochistic relationship. He took advantage of women who were vulnerable
through age or circumstances and inflicted violence on them albeit in two of the three cases with their consent. He accepts
that he was passionate when he was involved in sadomasochism. I find it difficult to accept that he can walk away from
this activity as easily as he says, and that his life can be as easily separated into unrelated aspects as he suggests. I feel
that there is something of himself in the sadomasochistic practices. The extent of the injury to Ms L, and the extent of
the beating administered to Ms P are causes for concern; as is the act of sticking pins into the breast of a 16 year old in
a car by the roadside in a remote place.”

15.. It seems to us that the learned judge was entitled to take the view that a longer than commensurate sentence was necessary
in this case, to protect the public from serious harm, from this applicant.

16.. Thus, notwithstanding the cogent and clear submissions of Miss Lynch, this appeal has to be dismissed.

Crown copyright

© 2021 Thomson Reuters. 3