Legal Research
Cases
Dawood v R

Dawood v R

Case [2013] NZCA 381 20 August 2013

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA109/2013
[2013] NZCA 381

BETWEEN	NAJEEB DAWOOD DAWOOD Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	25 July 2013
Court:	White, Goddard, Simon France JJ
Counsel:	C J Tennet for Appellant K A L Bicknell for Respondent
Judgment:	20 August 2013 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Introduction

The appellant pleaded guilty to the murder of his wife after stabbing her 55 times with a knife on 2 September 2011, and was sentenced to life imprisonment by Miller J on 8 February 2013, with a minimum term of imprisonment of 17 years.[1]
[1]R v Dawood [2013] NZHC 122.
The murder was the culmination of a history of threats and violence by the appellant towards his wife, prompted by depression and abnormal jealousy over her imagined infidelity. The history of violence included threats to harm the couple’s children and an assault on their youngest daughter in 2010, when she was aged 13 years. Three separate charges arose from that 2010 incident, for which Miller J sentenced the appellant to concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment. In addition, the appellant was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of four years’ imprisonment for the aggravated wounding of his eldest daughter on the day that he murdered his wife.
The appeal against sentence is directed to the 17 year minimum term imposed by Miller J, on the ground that the starting point of 19 years was too high, resulting in a manifestly excessive or inappropriate sentence, and inadequate credit being given for the appellant’s personal circumstances and his plea of guilty. Alternatively, it is argued that Miller J failed to follow the two step process advocated in R v Williams,[2] and to correctly apply the approach in Hessell v R,[3] resulting in a loss of appropriate credits for the appellant. A further argument was that the 17 year term was manifestly unjust under s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) and that a minimum term of imprisonment of 14 years would have been appropriate in all the circumstances.

Background facts

[2]R v Williams [2005] 2 NZLR 506 (CA) at [52].

[3]Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.

The night before the murder the appellant went to a shed at the rear of the family property, which served as his private office. There he accessed voice recordings he had been making of his wife’s telephone calls and saved these onto his computer, placing them into a structured series of folders under her name. He then typed a letter to his eldest son, in which he spoke of defacing his wife and committing suicide.
The next morning the appellant lured his wife to the shed, locked the door and forced her to sit in a chair. He then tied her arms to the chair with masking tape, took a large kitchen knife…

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 Dawood v R

Details

AGLC: Dawood v R [2013] NZCA 381
Case: [2013] NZCA 381
Decision Date: 20 August 2013 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dawood v R concerns an appeal against the sentence imposed by Miller J on the appellant, Najeeb Dawood, who was convicted of murdering his wife. The appeal focused on the 17-year minimum term of imprisonment set by Miller J, arguing that it was excessively high and did not adequately account for the appellant's personal circumstances and his plea of guilty. The Court of Appeal, consisting of White, Goddard, and Simon France JJ, dismissed the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point of 19 years for the minimum term was too high, whether the sentencing process was flawed by an erroneous approach or insufficient credit given to mitigating factors, and whether the minimum term of 17 years was manifestly unjust. The appeal hinged on whether the sentencing approach adhered to the two-step process outlined in R v Williams and whether the discount for the guilty plea was applied correctly as per Hessell v R.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing approach taken by Miller J was consistent with the recommended two-step process in R v Williams, and there was no error in how the aggravating and mitigating factors were assessed. The starting point of 19 years, adjusted by considering the appellant's mental health issues and his plea of guilty, led to a final sentence that was appropriate and not manifestly unjust. The Court found that the appellant's personal circumstances did not significantly reduce his culpability, and the 17-year minimum term was justified given the brutality and premeditation of the crime. Therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders