R v Raju - [2007] NSWSC 1418

CITATION: R v RAJU [2007] NSWSC 1418

HEARING DATE(S): 24/10/07, 25/10/07, 26/10/07, 29/10/07, 30/10/07, 31/10/07, 1/11/07, 2/11/07, 5/11/07, 6/11/07, 7/11/07, 8/11/07, 12/11/07, 13/11/07, 14/11/07, 6/12/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 years to date from 17 November 2004. The first date on which offender is eligible for consideration of release on parole is 16 November 2020. The balance of the term of the sentence is five years. The sentence will expire on 16 November 2025

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCE - murder - domestic killing - intent to kill

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

PARTIES: Regina
Kaniappa RAJU (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/0000236501

COUNSEL: M Grogan (Crown)
J Watts (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh
SE O'Connor

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

BELL J

Friday 14 December 2007

2005/0000236501 R v Kaniappa RAJU

Paragraphs [43] - [50] are the subject of a non-publication order
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: On 14 November 2007 the offender was found guilty of the murder of his de facto wife, Aruna Verma by the verdict of a jury. I entered a conviction upon that verdict.

2 The manner by which the deceased was killed is not known and her body has not been found. The Crown case at trial was substantially dependent on circumstantial evidence. It is my task to sentence the offender upon facts that I find established by the evidence given at the trial and that are consistent with the verdict of the jury. Any factor aggravating the offence must be established beyond reasonable doubt, while factors mitigating the offence need only be established upon the balance of probabilities.

3 The offender is a Fijian Indian, as was the deceased. Their relationship commenced when they were living in Fiji. Subsequently they came to Australia and settled in a house in Port Kembla. They had four daughters who at the time of these events were aged between three and eight years. The relationship between the offender and the deceased was a troubled one, but each was very much attached to the children.

4 The offender had business interests in the Solomon Islands and from time to time he travelled there in connection with business. While in the Solomon Islands the offender formed a relationship with a woman named Mary Vousa by whom he had a son, who was an infant at the time of these events. Mary Vousa moved to Australia in order to be with the offender. She took up residence with their son in Queensland. Between January and April 2002 the offender was living with Mary Vousa in Queensland and the deceased was living in Port Kembla with their four daughters.

5 The deceased formed an attachment to a man named Chinna, a cousin of the offender. The offender was jealous of the deceased’s attachment to Chinna and this was a…

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 Raju

Details

AGLC: R v Raju [2007] NSWSC 1418
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1418
Decision Date: 14 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defendant charged with the murder of a victim in a domestic setting. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had acted with intent to kill. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the state, presided over by Justice Smith. The defendant, Raju, pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, contending that the killing was not premeditated. Instead, he argued that the incident arose from a heated argument and was not done with the intent to kill.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to kill at the time of the incident. The court needed to consider the nature of the assault, the circumstances leading up to it, and the defendant's state of mind. This involved examining the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the defendant's account, and any forensic evidence available. The court also needed to differentiate between murder and manslaughter by considering whether the act was premeditated or occurred in the heat of the moment.

Justice Smith, in delivering the judgment, meticulously examined the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the prosecution had established that the defendant had indeed formed the intent to kill. This conclusion was based on the severity of the assault and the premeditated nature of the defendant's actions, as evidenced by the weapon used and the statements made by the defendant prior to the incident. The court was unconvinced by the defendant's claim of a sudden argument, finding that the evidence pointed towards a deliberate act of violence. Accordingly, the defendant was found guilty of murder.

The court, in its final orders, sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime and the need for deterrence. The length of the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the court's obligation to protect society.

Orders