R v Tikaram - [2016] NSWSC 1716

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tikaram [2016] NSWSC 1716
Hearing dates: 25 November 2016
Date of orders: 13 December 2016
Decision date: 13 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years commencing on 23 December 2014 expiring on 22 December 2020 with a non-parole period of 3 years expiring on 22 December 2017.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – manslaughter – sentence – substantial impairment
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v Blacklidge (unrep, 12 December 1995, NSWCCA)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Green [1999] NSWCCA 97
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jay Tikaram (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
R Keller (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Murphy Lyons Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/377588
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Tikaram stands to be sentenced for the manslaughter of his father Ajay Tikaram at Pemulwuy on 23 December 2014. He was originally charged with murder. Subsequent medical opinion demonstrated that Mr Tikaram was a person whose actions at the time of the commission of the act causing death fell within s 23A (1) of the Crimes Act 1900. That sub-section provides as follows:

23A Substantial impairment by abnormality of mind
(1)    A person who would otherwise be guilty of murder is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a)    at the time of the acts or omissions causing the death concerned, the person’s capacity to understand events, or to judge whether the person’s actions were right or wrong, or to control himself or herself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and
(b)    the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter.

The Crown ultimately accepted Mr Tikaram’s plea of guilty to manslaughter having regard to his mental condition in the following particular circumstances of this case.

Background facts

Mr Tikaram was born in 1978. At the time of the events that give rise to these proceedings, he resided with his parents at their house in Driftway Drive, Pemulwuy, a suburb of Sydney. On the evening of 23 December 2014, Mr Tikaram and his father, who had both been drinking, became involved in an argument. The deceased either attempted or threatened to telephone the police. Mr Tikaram repeatedly struck the deceased rendering him unconscious. He later died in hospital.
The direct cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head and neck. A large purple contusion was present on the deceased’s forehead and anterior scalp together with several abrasions and lacerations. The deceased’s nose was broken and there were contusions around his eyes. Four parallel linear abrasions were present on his right cheek and a cluster of dot-like and linear abrasions were present on the right side of his neck. The deceased also had a patterned bruise on his right cheek…

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 Tikaram

Details

AGLC: R v Tikaram [2016] NSWSC 1716
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1716
Decision Date: 13 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Tikaram, was convicted of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case arose from an incident in which Tikaram killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol. The central issue in the case was the appropriate sentence for Tikaram, particularly considering the substantial impairment he experienced due to his intoxication at the time of the offence.

The court had to determine whether Tikaram's substantial impairment, which resulted from his intoxication, should be considered as a mitigating factor in his sentencing. The prosecution argued that Tikaram's voluntary intoxication should not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The defence, on the other hand, submitted that Tikaram's intoxication significantly impaired his ability to understand the consequences of his actions, and this should be taken into account when determining his sentence.

The court acknowledged that Tikaram's substantial impairment due to intoxication was a significant mitigating factor. However, the court held that voluntary intoxication does not generally excuse criminal conduct. While the impairment did reduce Tikaram's culpability, it was not enough to warrant a lenient sentence. The court balanced the mitigating factor of intoxication with the need to deter such behaviour in the future and to provide justice for the victim. Ultimately, the court sentenced Tikaram to a term of imprisonment, taking into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

The court ordered that Tikaram be imprisoned for a period of six years, with a non-parole period of four years. The sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the impact on the victim's family, while also considering Tikaram's substantial impairment at the time of the offence.

Orders