Regina v Tiwary - [2006] NSWSC 1156

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: REGINA v TIWARY [2006] NSWSC 1156

HEARING DATE(S): 15/5/06-19/5/06, 22/5/06-24/5/06, 29/5/06-31/5/06, 1/6/06-3/6/06, 6/6/06-9/6/06, 13/6/06-20/6/06, 3/8/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 November 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: On the first count of the indictment in respect of the murder of Chow Lyang Tay, the offender is sentenced to a term of twenty-five years’ imprisonment commencing on 28 May 2004.; On the second count of the indictment, in respect of the murder of Poh Chuan Tan, the offender is sentenced to life imprisonment commencing on 28 May 2004.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - murder - two victims - motive to remove witness - life sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Administration of Sentencing) Act 1999 s135
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 61(1)

CASES CITED: R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; (2001) 121 A Crim R 342
R v Merritt (2000) NSWLR 557

PARTIES: Regina v Ram Puneet TIWARY (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1899

COUNSEL: Mr T Hoyle SC (Crown)
Mr Peter Doyle (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S J Kavanagh (Crown)
Andrew Miller & Associates (Offender)

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

ADAMS J

6 NOVEMBER 2006

2005/1899 REGINA v Ram Puneet TIWARY
JUDGMENT

1 ADAMS J:

Introduction

2 The three occupants of the premises, namely the offender and the two victims, were citizens of Singapore living in Australia and studying at the University of New South Wales. The two deceased were studying electrical engineering and were in their final year. They were in their early to mid-twenties, as was the offender. The offender was studying on a scholarship from the Singapore Armed Services, of which he was a serving member. Both Mr Tan and Mr Tay were achieving good results in their studies. The offender was having less success in that regard.

The circumstances of the crimes

3 Shortly after 2 pm on Monday 15 September 2003 a “OOO” call was made from the premises by the offender requesting ambulance and police assistance because his flatmates, he said, had been murdered. It is unnecessary to detail the contents of that call. Although it must be accepted that what the offender said about what happened was a fabrication, I do not doubt that he was very emotionally disturbed by what had happened. In substance, the offender claimed he was in his bedroom at the time that the killings occurred.

4 About fifteen minutes later police and ambulance arrived at the premises. The offender was outside the front of the premises. He was questioned by police though, at this stage, as a witness rather than as a suspect. When police…

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 Regina v Tiwary

Details

AGLC: Regina v TIWARY [2006] NSWSC 1156
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1156
Decision Date: 6 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Tiwary, the appellant was convicted of the murder of two individuals and was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 36 years. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal in New South Wales. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant considerations. The appellant's counsel submitted that the sentence should be reduced due to the appellant's age, background, and remorse. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate given the heinous nature of the crimes and the need to protect the community.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's background, and the need to protect the community. The court held that while the appellant's age and background were mitigating factors, the gravity of the crimes and the need to protect the community were paramount. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's sentence of two terms of life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 36 years, was affirmed.

Orders