Legal Research
Cases
Akash v R

Akash v R

Case [2017] NZCA 122 11 April 2017

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA512/2016
[2017] NZCA 122

BETWEEN	AKASH Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 March 2017
Court:	Winkelmann, Woodhouse and Collins JJ
Counsel:	M S Gibson for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	11 April 2017 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

The appellant, Mr Akash, pleaded guilty to one charge of murder. He was sentenced by Palmer J to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.[1] He appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to take into account his guilty plea and remorse when addressing the issue of whether imposition of the 17-year minimum would be manifestly unjust.

The Crown facts

[1]R v Akash [2016] NZHC 2348 at [27].

At the time of the offending Mr Akash was 24 years old. For about the previous 12 months he had been in a relationship with the victim, Ms Gurpreet Kaur, who was 22 years old. They were both students although Mr Akash was working lengthy hours in part‑time jobs to fund his studies. The two had kept their relationship secret from their families.
On the day of the offending Mr Akash collected Ms Kaur from the Manurewa train station. She had been dropped off there by her mother who thought Ms Kaur was going to study. Mr Akash and Ms Kaur drove south. Medical evidence suggests that Ms Kaur was some seven to 10 weeks pregnant. She had yet to tell her parents of this. Mr Akash believed that he was the father of the child.
At about 9 am Mr Akash bought methamphetamine in Meremere and continued south. He used the methamphetamine shortly before the murder. His account is that Ms Kaur told him she wanted to break off the relationship and that the baby she was carrying was not his. Mr Akash reacted violently. Using a knife that he kept in the car he cut and stabbed Ms Kaur 29 times, in her scalp, face, neck, chest and abdomen. A cut to her neck injured her jugular. There were also cuts on her right hand and left forearm consistent with her defending herself. There were 23 stab wounds to the body, four or five of which were to the abdomen. There was at least one deep wound and three lesser wounds to the abdomen. There were also many other blows to Ms Kaur’s upper torso.
At the end of the attack Ms Kaur was dead. Mr Akash disposed of her body in the scrub on the roadside of Hampton Downs Road, south of Meremere. He then threw her bag out of the window of his car as he travelled north. At Otahuhu he bought new clothes and placed his bloodied clothes in a plastic bag, although he left his old top in the changing room of the clothes shop. Later that day Mr Akash left the remaining…

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 Akash v R

Details

AGLC: Akash v R [2017] NZCA 122
Case: [2017] NZCA 122
Decision Date: 11 April 2017 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Akash, the appellant, appealed against his sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years for the murder of Gurpreet Kaur. He argued that the Judge failed to take into account his guilty plea and remorse when assessing whether imposing the 17-year minimum would be manifestly unjust. The appeal hinged on the application of s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates a minimum 17-year imprisonment for the most serious cases of murder, unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust.

The court examined the principles established in previous cases, particularly R v Harrison, which outlined a two-step process for sentencing under s 104. The first step involves assessing the degree of culpability compared to standard cases, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The second step considers whether a 17-year minimum term would be manifestly unjust, requiring powerful mitigating factors to justify a lesser term. The court noted that a guilty plea may reduce the sentence but does not automatically warrant a significant discount, especially if the offender initially denies guilt and the evidence against them is strong.

In this case, the court found that the murder was highly brutal, callous, and cruel, warranting a starting point of 18 years. Despite the early guilty plea and expressions of remorse, the court concluded that the one-year discount for the plea was sufficient. The appellant's initial denial of guilt and the strength of the evidence against him further supported the 17-year minimum term. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence was not manifestly unjust.

Orders