Legal Research
Cases
R v Tiwary

R v Tiwary

Case [2009] NSWSC 1415 17 December 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Tiwary [2009] NSWSC 1415

HEARING DATE(S): 13 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1

DECISION: 1. For the murder of Chow Lyang Tay, sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 25 years comprising a non-parole period of 18 years and three months commencing on 28 May 2004 and expiring on 27 August 2022 with a balance of term of six years and nine months commencing on 28 May 2022 and expiring on 27 May 2029.
2. For the murder of Poh Chuan Tan, sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 30 years commencing on 28 May 2012 and expiring on 27 May 2042, with a balance of term of 10 years commencing on 28 May 2042 and expiring on 27 May 2052.
3. The earliest date upon which Ram Puneet Tiwary will be eligible for parole is 28 May 2042.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence after trial - two counts of murder - murder of two flatmates - attacks upon victims using softball bat and knife - time gap between murders - whether life imprisonment appropriate for second murder - determinate sentence imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Tiwary [2006] NSWSC 1156
Tiwary v R [2008] NSWCCA 319
Cheung v The Queen [2001] 209 CLR 1
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] 199 CLR 270
De Gruchy v The Queen [2002] 211 CLR 85
R v Vjestica [2008] VSCA 47; 182 A Crim R 350
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Mehta [2009] NSWSC 814
Ta’ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132
R v Hill [2003] NSWCCA 128
R v Villa [2005] NSWCCA 4
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Folbigg (2005) 152 A Crim R 35
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 242 at 272

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Ram Puneet Tiwary (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/3786

COUNSEL: Mr J Kiely SC (Crown)
Mr D Dalton SC; Mr A Goodridge (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
John B Hajje & Associates (Offender)

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

Johnson J

17 December 2009

2005/3786 Regina v Ram Puneet Tiwary
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 JOHNSON J: On 6 October 2009, the Offender, Ram Puneet Tiwary, was found guilty by a jury on two counts of murder committed on 15 September 2003. The Offender was convicted of the murders of his flatmates, Chow Lyang Tay and Poh Chuan Tan.

2 The Offender had been convicted of the murders on 20 June 2006 following an earlier trial before Adams J and a jury. On 6 November 2006, Adams J sentenced the Offender…

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 Tiwary

Details

AGLC: R v Tiwary [2009] NSWSC 1415
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1415
Decision Date: 17 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Tiwary, the defendant stood before the Court of Appeal, contesting the sentence imposed following his conviction on two counts of murder. The case involved the brutal killings of two of his flatmates, one of whom was attacked with a softball bat and the other with a knife. A notable aspect of the case was the significant time gap between the two murders, which raised questions about the appropriate sentencing for the second murder. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment was suitable for the second murder, given the particular circumstances of the crimes and the defendant's actions.

The court considered the severity and brutality of the crimes, as well as the nature of the weapons used. It also examined the time gap between the murders and the impact this had on the appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the need to balance the gravity of the crimes with the need to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and just. In assessing the defendant's culpability, the court took into account the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's state of mind and the nature of the relationship with the victims. Ultimately, the court determined that a determinate sentence was appropriate for the second murder, reflecting the seriousness of the crime while also considering the unique factors of the case.

The court concluded that the sentence of life imprisonment was not the most appropriate outcome for the second murder, given the specific circumstances. Instead, the court imposed a determinate sentence, which it deemed to be more proportionate to the crime and the defendant's culpability. The decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the unique aspects of each case when determining the appropriate sentence, particularly in cases involving multiple murders with significant time gaps between the crimes. The court's decision ensures that justice is served in a manner that is both fair and reflective of the particular facts of the case.

Orders