R v Edwin Jitesh Chandra

Case [2015] NSWDC 234


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Edwin Jitesh Chandra [2015] NSWDC 234
Hearing dates:25 May to 5 June 2015
Decision date: 11 September 2015
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Knox SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentenced to 16 years imprisonment

Non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – grievous bodily harm by the use of corrosive fluid – intention to pour petrol on victim and ignite it – burning of victim – extent of injuries by burning – public safety – danger to others – high range objective criminality – invitation to offender to come inside victim's home – flight and extradition – absence of mitigating factors including remorse – planning and premeditation by thoughtful offender – assessment to criminality near to worst case
Legislation Cited: Section 27 of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900
Cases Cited: Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185 , Park v R [2010] NSWCCA 151; R v VAA [2006] NSWCCA 44; Arun v R [2010] NSWCCA 214, R v Heron [2006] NSWCCA 215, Cassidy v R [2012] NSWCCA 68, Josefski v R [2010] NSWCCA 41, R v Chisari [2006] NSWCCA 19, Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88 at 111 – 112 , Aktar v R [2015] NSWCCA 123, Kendall v R [2015] NSWCCA 13; R v Twala (NSWCCA, unreported, 4 November 1994), Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282, Little v R [2010] NSWCCA 210
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Edwin Jitesh Chandra (Accused)
Representation:

Crown Advocate: Ms Morkaya

Accused: Mr Steel
File Number(s):2011/35159

Judgment

Charges

1.   On 5 June 2015, Edwin Jitesh Chandra (“the offender”) was found guilty by a jury on a charge brought pursuant to section 46 of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900 (“Crimes Act”) that:

“On 24 December 2010, he intentionally used a substance, namely petrol, upon Mr Gurmail Saini (“Mr Saini”), and ignited it, causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Saini.”

2.   The charge carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period for the offence.

3. The offender was acquitted on a more serious charge brought under section 27 of the Crimes Act of causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Saini with intent to murder him. That charge also carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

4. A distinction needs to be drawn between this offence and an offence under s 33, which has the same maximum penalty and a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

Relationship

5.   The offender was in a relationship with a woman known as Ms Mohini Sharma (“Ms Sharma”) from early 2009. They moved from Melbourne to Sydney. Ms Sharma commenced working as a carer with an organisation called Syd West Multicultural Services Inc and its sub-organisation, called “CALD Aged Care Services”. Ms Sharma was a carer for Mr Saini’s mother and wife. Mr Saini’s wife died apparently…

Continue reading R v Edwin Jitesh Chandra

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Edwin Jitesh Chandra [2015] NSWDC 234
Case
[2015] NSWDC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwin Jitesh Chandra, the defendant was convicted of grievous bodily harm caused by the use of corrosive fluid, with an intention to pour petrol on the victim and ignite it, resulting in severe burns. The matter was heard in a higher court in Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions, taking into account the severity of the crime, the extent of the injuries inflicted, the public safety implications, and the degree of premeditation involved.

The court considered the extent of the victim's injuries, which were severe and life-altering, as well as the dangerous nature of the defendant's actions which posed a significant risk to public safety. The court also noted the absence of any mitigating factors such as remorse or cooperation with authorities. Instead, the defendant's actions were marked by careful planning and a high degree of premeditation, indicating a level of objective criminality that approached the worst-case scenario. The invitation for the victim to come inside the defendant's home further demonstrated the level of danger posed to others.

Based on these considerations, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months. The severity of the crime, the absence of mitigating factors, and the high degree of planning and premeditation all contributed to this outcome. The court's decision was guided by the need to ensure public safety, to reflect the gravity of the defendant's actions, and to provide a sentence that was commensurate with the level of criminality involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 16 years imprisonment

Non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.