Legal Research
Cases
R v Patel (No 3)

R v Patel (No 3)

Case [2018] NSWSC 952 22 June 2018

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Patel (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 952
Hearing dates: 18 May 2018
Date of orders: 22 June 2018
Decision date: 22 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 7 years and a balance of term of the sentence of 2 years 4 months. The total term of imprisonment is 9 years 4 months.

Catchwords: SENTENCE – manslaughter by excessive self-defence – death by strangulation and suffocation – peri mortem stab wounds – stab wounds not a cause of death – conduct not a reasonable response in the circumstances as perceived by offender – manifestly excessive response – altercation involving knife
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 24, 421
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A
Cases Cited: Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Pitts v R [2014] NSWCCA 244
R v Abdallah [2015] NSWSC 531
R v Anderson [2016] NSWSC 399
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1985, unrep)
R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 79
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Hadchiti [2017] NSWSC 292
R v Hamzy [2016] NSWSC 1512
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; 90 A Crim R
R v Johnson (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 1169
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; 155 A Crim R 458; [2005] HCA 37
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; 103 A Crim R 149; [1999] HCA 54
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
R v Weinman (1987) 49 SASR 248
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
Weininger v R (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Manisha Patel (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Baker SC (Crown)
J Manuell SC/T Quilter (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/247888

Judgment

Introduction

On 5 July 2013, Purvi Joshi flew from Gujarat, India to Sydney, Australia to commence her new life with her fiancé, Niraj Dave. Twenty-five days later, she was dead, having been strangled and suffocated by Manisha Patel in the early hours of the morning of 30 July 2013.
The first trial for murder took place in June 2015. The jury in that trial convicted the offender of murder. That conviction was the subject of a successful appeal on the grounds that the self-defence direction given to the jury was incorrect.
In February 2018, there was a retrial and on 9 March 2018, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter.
Given the jury’s verdict, and the way in which this trial was run, the jury must have decided that the offender acted in self-defence, but that her response was disproportionate to the circumstances as…

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 Patel (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Patel (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 952
Case: [2018] NSWSC 952
Decision Date: 22 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Patel (No 3) involved the defendant, Patel, who was charged with the manslaughter of a deceased individual through excessive self-defence. The incident arose from a confrontation where the deceased had a knife and the defendant used force in response, resulting in the death of the deceased. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Patel.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Patel's actions constituted manslaughter by excessive self-defence. The court needed to assess whether Patel's response was a reasonable one given the circumstances as he perceived them, particularly considering the nature of the threat posed by the deceased. The court also had to consider the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and whether the stab wounds inflicted by Patel contributed to the deceased's death.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that Patel's conduct was a manifestly excessive response to the circumstances. The court determined that the deceased's death was caused by strangulation and suffocation, not the stab wounds inflicted by Patel. Given the evidence, the court concluded that Patel's response was not a reasonable one as it was significantly disproportionate to the threat posed by the deceased. The court also noted that Patel's perception of the threat may have been influenced by factors such as his state of mind at the time of the incident. Ultimately, the court sentenced Patel to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence on Patel for manslaughter by excessive self-defence, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors presented during the sentencing hearing. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community, ensuring that the sentence served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders