Deo v R

Case [2012] NZCA 484 23 October 2012

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA4/2012
[2012] NZCA 484

BETWEEN KAARTIK DEO
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 11 September 2012

Court: Arnold, Priestley and Ronald Young JJ

Counsel: A G Speed and S T Clark for Appellant
M D Downs for Respondent

Judgment: 23 October 2012 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Arnold J)

Introduction

Following a jury trial before Judge Bouchier, the appellant, Mr Deo, and two co-offenders, Joshua and Daniel Tai, were convicted of one count of aggravated burglary. In addition, Mr Deo and his brother, Kushant Deo, were convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Judge Bouchier sentenced Mr Deo to a term of imprisonment of four years.[1] Mr Deo now appeals against conviction and sentence.

Background

[1] R v Tai DC Auckland CRI-2010-090-8436, 19 December 2011.

While her parents were away, a teenage girl, Audrey, had a small party at her house to which she invited a small group of friends. Her older brother, Cedric, was present. Mr Deo and the Tai brothers turned up at the party, although they did not know Audrey and were not invited. They arrived in Mr Deo’s white van with several others, including Monica Tai (the Tai brothers’ sister) and another female friend who had a baby with her and had been invited to the party by a friend of Audrey’s. Audrey asked the group to leave. They did so but, as they were leaving, Daniel Tai said something like “We’ll be seeing you later then”.
The Crown alleged that around 1.40 am, when about eight people remained at the party, Mr Deo, the Tai brothers, Monica Tai and one or two unknown associates returned to the address in Mr Deo’s white van. Mr Deo was the driver and waited in the van at the end of the driveway while the Tai brothers and an unknown associate approached the house. They were wearing hoodies and had bandannas over the lower part of their faces. They broke several large ranch slider doors to get into the house, where they were confronted by Cedric. One of the intruders had a large knife and threatened to stab him, while another attacked him with a large metal bar or pipe, which was aimed at his head. He managed to deflect the bar with his arm, which left a large gash requiring several stitches. The intruders ultimately took a number of items from the house including a guitar, laptop computers, iPods, iPod speakers and a camera.
When they saw the men smashing the ranch slider doors, two of the party-goers, Mr Khanthee and Mr Williams-Spiers, ran out the front door of the house and down the driveway. Both said in evidence that they saw a white van parked in the entrance to the driveway, which they thought was the same white van…

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 Deo v R

Details

AGLC: Deo v R [2012] NZCA 484
Case: [2012] NZCA 484
Decision Date: 23 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kaartik Deo appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated burglary and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the sentence was too severe. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The Court found that the identification evidence was properly considered by the jury, and the evidence against Mr Deo was not unreasonable. The starting point for sentencing was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and the mitigating factors were adequately taken into account. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders