R v Lechmana - [2010] NSWSC 849

CITATION: R v Lechmana [2010] NSWSC 849
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 30th November ; 1,2,3,4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 December 2009; 12th February, 9th April and 11th June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: Convicted of the murder of Pharzana Nathagopal. Sentenced to a non parole period of 17 years and 3 months to date from 25 February 2008, expiring 24 May 2025, with a balance of term of 5 years and 9 months, expiring 24 February 2031. Eligible for release on 25 May 2025

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - relevant factors - nature and circumstances of offender - depressive illness - nature and circumstances of offence - whether intention to kill

LEGISLATION CITED: Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina - Crown
Nanthagopal Lechmana - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/19511

COUNSEL: M Cunneen SC - Regina
G. Scragg - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosectutions
Jeffreys & Associates - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

9 JULY 2010

2008/19511 R v NANTHAGOPAL LECHMANA
SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR : The offender was found guilty after trial of the murder of his wife, Pharzana, on 25 February 2008. It was never in dispute that he had caused her death by strangulation. The only partial defence at trial was that of substantial impairment, which the jury rejected, in the sense that the offender’s depression was not considered so substantial that it warranted the reduction of the verdict from murder to manslaughter.

2 The verdict was, in my opinion, completely understandable, given the nature of the relationship between the offender and his wife, the deterioration of that relationship in the months leading up to her death, including a previous assault upon her by the offender, the couple’s efforts towards salvaging the marriage and the victim’s final decision to separate from the offender, which the offender could not accept. The offender’s violence towards his wife on the night she died was not the act of a man so deep in the grip of a depression that he was unable to control himself. It was the act of a man who could see that his wife no longer loved him, that she was beyond his authority as her husband, that she had determined to separate from him, taking their child with her, and there was nothing he could do to prevent it.

3 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender assaulted his wife on the night of 25 February 2008 with the intention of killing her. The reasons for that finding are set out below. I am not persuaded that the offence was premeditated. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence suggest that the offender’s frustration and anger, arising out of the prospect of losing his wife and child and his sense of…

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 Lechmana

Details

AGLC: R v Lechmana [2010] NSWSC 849
Case: [2010] NSWSC 849
Decision Date: 9 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lechmana, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The appeal was against the sentence imposed. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offender and the offence. The offender, Lechmana, suffered from a depressive illness, which was a significant factor in the commission of the offence. The court had to weigh this against the nature and severity of the crime, which involved the death of another person.

The legal issues before the court included the relevance of the offender's mental state at the time of the offence and whether this should be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing. Additionally, the court had to assess the proportionality of the sentence imposed, considering both the offender's personal circumstances and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family. The court needed to balance these factors to ensure that the sentence was just and appropriate.

The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed appropriate. It considered the mitigating factor of the offender's depressive illness but also recognised the gravity of the offence and its impact on the victim. The court concluded that the sentence reflected a fair balance between the need for punishment and the need to consider the offender's personal circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing, taking into account both the nature of the offence and the background of the offender.

Orders