Raymond Keringbo: Wadeye teen’s grog ban imposed as part of suspended sentence overturned

A young criminal who was jailed for a raft of property offending argued a judge had no right to ban him from consuming alcohol. Here’s why the NT Supreme Court agreed.

Raymond Keringbo successfully overturned an alcohol ban. Picture: Floss Adams.

A young criminal from Wadeye who was jailed for a raft of property offending has successfully argued that a Local Court judge had no right to ban him from consuming alcohol.

Raymond Keringbo was aged 19 when he committed a raft of property offences between August 22–24, 2022, according to Supreme Court Justice John Burns.

He pleaded guilty on July 26 last year and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, suspended after 45 days, time he had already served in pre-sentence custody.

One of the conditions imposed upon the jail term’s suspension was that Keringbo, who went on to be convicted of further offending, not possess or consume alcohol for the duration of the suspended sentence’s operational period.

This condition was appealed on grounds including that Keringbo was not afforded procedural fairness as there was no opportunity for his lawyer to argue against the condition, and that the condition was “unnecessary, needlessly onerous, otherwise ‘undesirable’, contrary to law, or repugnant to the principles or policy of the law”.

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Justice John Burns. Picture: Supplied/NT Courts

On March 20, Justice Burns, having already overturned the condition on December 6 last year, gave his reasons for why he agreed its imposition was contrary to law.

He found that the prosecution accepted that alcohol misuse “was not involved in any of the offences” and neither the prosecution nor defence raised alcohol as a “criminogenic factor” relevant to Keringbo.

Further, the Local Court judge never raised the possibility of an alcohol ban prior to imposing her sentence, nor gave any reason for doing so once the condition was imposed.

“[Keringbo’s lawyer] was thus deprived of the opportunity to address the court on the proposed condition,” Justice Burns said.

Wadeye, Northern Territory. Picture: Jason Walls

Voluminous reasons did not need to be given for “every condition” imposed as part of a good-behaviour bond or suspended sentence, as a rule, but in circumstances where the condition “has no apparent connection to the offences under consideration, the circumstances of the offender, or criminogenic risks identified for the offender,” they needed to be.

Defence counsel also needed to be given “advance warning” such a move was on the cards, Justice Burns said.

Citing previous cases, he said judges had a “broad” but not unlimited discretion in imposing conditions they saw fit.

As the condition was not “reasonably related to the punishment of the particular crimes committed... did not relate to the character of the crimes or any purpose of punishment for the crimes... [and] could not be justified as relating to deterrence or rehabilitation,” it was not open to the judge to impose it.