Legal Research
Cases
R v Goundar

R v Goundar

Case [2010] NSWSC 1170 5 November 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Munesh Goundar [2010] NSWSC 1170

HEARING DATE(S): 31/5/10
1/6/10-3/6/10
7/6/10-11/6/10
15/6/10
17/9/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
5 November 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

DECISION: Imprisonment with a non parole period of 8 years to date from 8 March 2007 and expire on 7 March 2015, with a total sentence of 10 years 8 months to date from 8 March 2007 and to expire on 7 November 2017. Eligible for release on parole on 7 March 2015.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter verdict after trial for murder - provocation - confrontation planned without intention of gbh - knife used when provoked - objectively serious - some evidence mental illness - intoxicated - aggravated by disposal of body.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1
R v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim R 82
R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141
R v Khan (1996) 86 A Crim R 552
Knight v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 292; (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Green [1999] NSWCCA 97
R v Ibrahim [2009] NSWCCA 15

PARTIES: Regina
Munesh Pravin Goundar

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/16665

COUNSEL: P E Barrett (Crown)
W C Terracini SC / A Miller (Acc)

SOLICITORS: K Buck - DPP (Crown)
Accused unrepresented

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

KIRBY J

Friday 5 November 2010

2007/16665 REGINA v Munesh Pravin GOUNDAR
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 KIRBY J: Some time after 3.00 pm on Sunday 11 February 2007, Rajnesh Singh (“the deceased”) left home in his truck, telling his mother that he would purchase milk, which the family needed. When he failed to return that evening, his family began a search. When he could not be found, his absence was reported to the police. The family hired a helicopter in an endeavour to locate his truck, but without success. His truck was eventually found in Liverpool on 20 February 2007 by his brother. There was a carton of milk on the front seat.

2 In March 2007, in circumstances that I will shortly describe, Munesh Goundar (“the offender”) was arrested in New Zealand. He was charged with the murder of Rajnesh Singh and extradited to New South Wales. On 31 May 2010, he was arraigned before a jury. He pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown refused to accept that plea. The trial proceeded. There was really only one issue, that is, whether the Crown had excluded, beyond reasonable doubt, the partial defence of provocation. On 15 June 2010, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

3 It remains for me to pass sentence. Before I do so, I must determine the facts relevant to the sentencing discretion, in a manner consistent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Goundar

Details

AGLC: R v Goundar [2010] NSWSC 1170
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1170
Decision Date: 5 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Goundar, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter following a trial for murder. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, with particular consideration given to the mitigating factors of provocation, the defendant's state of intoxication, and the disposal of the victim's body. The case centred on whether the defendant's actions were provoked to the extent that they could be considered manslaughter rather than murder, and how these mitigating factors should influence the sentencing.

The legal issues before the court included the applicability of provocation as a mitigating factor in the defendant's sentencing, whether the defendant's intoxication should be considered in the sentencing, and the significance of the disposal of the victim's body in aggravating the offence. The court had to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution.

The court determined that while the defendant had planned a confrontation, there was no intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The use of a knife during the confrontation, which was objectively serious, was a critical factor in the sentencing. The court found that the defendant was provoked, and this provocation significantly influenced his actions. Additionally, the court considered the evidence of the defendant's mental illness and intoxication, which provided some mitigation. However, the aggravated nature of the offence, due to the disposal of the victim's body, weighed heavily in the sentencing decision. The court ultimately concluded that the appropriate sentence was one that reflected the seriousness of the crime, while also taking into account the mitigating factors.

The court ordered the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific consideration given to the mitigating factors of provocation, intoxication, and the disposal of the body. The final orders reflected a balanced approach that recognised the gravity of the crime while also acknowledging the mitigating circumstances.

Orders