R v Sandhu - [2016] VSC 516

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0079

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
and
SUKHWINDER SINGH SANDHU	Accused

---

JUDGE:	CROUCHER J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	25 July 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 August 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sandhu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 516

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Accused stabbed wife repeatedly to neck with knife, lacerating jugular vein – Victim survived but suffers debilitating psychological and physical harm – Objectively grave offence but very low moral culpability – Accused’s behaviour caused by deluded thoughts, precipitated by schizophrenia, that victim was trying to kill him by poisoning – Corresponding reduction in weight to general deterrence, specific deterrence, curial denunciation and just punishment – Plea of guilty despite strong defence of mental impairment – Some remorse – No prior convictions but history of domestic violence – Impact of schizophrenia on hardship of imprisonment – Illness now controlled by anti-psychotic medication – Very good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years – But for mental illness and plea of guilty, sentence in order of 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms L Taylor QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms R Sleeth	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On the evening of 4 February 2015, after dinner with housemates, Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu followed his wife Ramandeep Kharod to their bedroom. Mr Sandhu then shut the door behind them, grabbed his wife by the hair and tried to kill her by stabbing her repeatedly to the neck with a knife. Upon hearing Ms Kharod’s screams, others in the house came to her aid. Fortunately, she survived, although the residual physical and psychological scars she suffered, and will continue to bear, are debilitating.

Mr Sandhu was arrested on the day of the attack, was charged with attempted murder and has remained in custody ever since. He has pleaded guilty to the charge.

Objectively, the offence is very grave. It must have been a terrifying ordeal for Ms Kharod. But for several factors in mitigation, however, the most important of which are that Mr Sandhu’s behaviour was caused by psychotic delusions that his wife was trying to poison him and that he has pleaded guilty despite having a nigh on unlosable defence of mental impairment, the prison sentence I am about to impose for the offence would be in the order of twice as long.

Background and circumstances giving rise to the offence

I turn now to the background and circumstances giving rise to the offence. They were detailed in the prosecution opening, which was read to the Court and which I shall summarize now.

Sukhwinder Sandhu was born on 19 August 1977 in India. On 26 October 2008, he married Ramandeep Kharod. It…

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 Sandhu

Details

AGLC: R v Sandhu [2016] VSC 516
Case: [2016] VSC 516
Decision Date: 29 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sandhu involved the appellant who had been convicted of attempted murder after stabbing his wife multiple times in the neck with a knife, causing severe physical and psychological harm. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the appellant. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's schizophrenia and delusional thoughts in determining his culpability and sentence. The court also had to consider the plea of guilty, the appellant's history of domestic violence, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court determined that the appellant's actions were objectively grave, but his moral culpability was very low due to his deluded thoughts stemming from schizophrenia. This diagnosis led the court to significantly reduce the weight given to general deterrence, specific deterrence, curial denunciation, and just punishment. Despite the appellant's strong defence of mental impairment, he entered a plea of guilty and showed some remorse. The court acknowledged the appellant's history of domestic violence and the impact of his illness on the hardship of imprisonment, which was now controlled by anti-psychotic medication. Additionally, the court noted the appellant's very good prospects of rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years was appropriate, taking into account the plea of guilty and the appellant's mental illness. The court emphasised that but for these factors, the sentence would have been in the order of 12 to 14 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years. The final orders of the court were to affirm the sentence imposed by the lower court, with the observations made regarding the mitigating factors considered.

Orders