R v Zafar - [2024] NSWSC 1639

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Zafar [2024] NSWSC 1639
Hearing dates: 25 November 2024
Date of orders: 19 December 2024
Decision date: 19 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sweeney J
Decision:
1. Mr Zafar is sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 years imprisonment with the balance of term of 5 years 6 months, making a total sentence of 21 years 6 months imprisonment, to date from 31 March 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 30 March 2038.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Sentencing — Murder — domestic violence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 29 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Meraj Zafar (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
F Gray (Crown)
T Hughes (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Crimcorp Defence Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/28539
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Meraj Zafar is to be sentenced for the offence of murdering his wife, Armina Hayat, in January 2022. He pleaded guilty to that offence in this court. The offence has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment prescribed. The Crown did not submit that this offence requires the imposition of the maximum penalty.
The facts of the offence were agreed between the Crown and Mr Zafar. I summarise them as follows.

Agreed facts

The offender married Ms Hayat on 13 October 2021. He was aged 20 on the date of the marriage. Ms Hayat was aged 18 at the date of the marriage and 19 at the time of her death. The marriage was a private Islamic ceremony, not attended by the families of Mr Zafar or Ms Hayat. The marriage was not supported by either family, who had not met.
Ms Hayat was born in Bangladesh and came to Australia with her parents as a child. At the time of her death she was a second year medical science student at the University of Western Sydney.
Ms Hayat and the offender met through friends in 2018, when she was in year 10 at high school. They initially met in the company of their friends. During 2019, when Ms Hayat was in year 11, she and the offender began to meet by themselves. In 2021 the relationship between Mr Zafar and Ms Hayat was on and off again. In September 2021 Mr Zafar and Ms Hayat were making plans to marry.
During 2021 there were a number of occasions when Ms Hayat made complaints, to friends, of the offender being violent towards her. She did not make a complaint to the police.
On 31 May 2021 at 2:20am Ms Hayat called a friend, distressed, and asked if she could come and stay the night at the friend’s home. Her friend agreed. When Ms Hayat arrived shortly afterwards she was crying. Her friend saw…

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 Zafar

Details

AGLC: R v Zafar [2024] NSWSC 1639
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1639
Decision Date: 19 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Zafar. The defendant was convicted of the murder of his wife. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crime. The court heard evidence of the defendant's violent history towards his wife, including previous instances of domestic violence. The circumstances of the murder were also considered, including the defendant's actions leading up to the killing and the manner in which the crime was committed.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crime and the factors that should be taken into account when determining that sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the defendant's history of domestic violence and the manner in which the crime was committed.

The court found that the defendant's history of domestic violence was a significant aggravating factor in the case. The court also found that the manner in which the crime was committed, including the level of premeditation and the defendant's lack of remorse, were further aggravating factors. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crime was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court considered the need for punishment and deterrence, as well as the need to protect the community from the defendant. The court also considered the need for rehabilitation, but found that this was not a significant factor in the case.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to certain conditions during his imprisonment, including restrictions on his contact with the outside world and mandatory participation in rehabilitation programs.

Orders