Kaur v R - [2017] NZCA 465

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA93/2016
[2017] NZCA 465

BETWEEN	AMANDEEP KAUR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	7 September 2017
Court:	French, Williams and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield and S R Lack for Appellant S K Barr for Respondent
Judgment:	17 October 2017 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to admit new evidence is declined.
BThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Ms Kaur and a co-defendant, Mr Gurjinder Singh, were found guilty by a High Court jury of the murder of Ms Kaur’s husband, Mr Davender Singh. The trial Judge, Lang J, convicted them and sentenced each to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]R v Kaur [2016] NZHC 125.
Ms Kaur now appeals her conviction and sentence on the grounds of new evidence that throughout her marriage her husband subjected her to prolonged and serious physical, sexual and psychological abuse. She seeks leave to admit that evidence on appeal.
In this judgment, we refer to Mr Davender Singh and Mr Gurjinder Singh by their first names to avoid confusion because they have the same surname.

Background

Ms Kaur and Davender were married in India in 2002. Both were from Rajasthan, a state in the north of India near the Punjab region. It was an arranged marriage. The couple emigrated to New Zealand in 2007.
In late March 2014, Ms Kaur began an affair with Gurjinder. They met at her workplace. He was a trainee and she was his supervisor. The affair was eventually discovered by their respective spouses on 11 July 2014. Work colleagues had also begun to suspect something and at one point Ms Kaur discussed with Gurjinder the possibility of getting one of the employees (her subordinate) dismissed in order to prevent that person talking to her husband.
After the affair was discovered, Ms Kaur and Gurjinder promised their respective spouses that the affair would end. But it did not. After 11 July 2014, Ms Kaur and Gurjinder communicated with each other at work primarily by writing notes. They did this because, according to Ms Kaur’s evidence, Davender had insisted on her taking a voice recorder to work so he could listen to all her conversations and make sure she was not talking to Gurjinder. In the notes, Ms Kaur told Gujrinder that Davender was beating her because of the affair. She expressed her love for Gujrinder and her wish to be free of her husband and to live with Gurjinder.
On or about 18 July 2014, Ms Kaur and Gurjinder began planning to kill Davender. The plan as recorded in the notes was that Ms Kaur would try to get her husband to drive down one of the roads near their house and to stop on the side of the road to talk as the two of them often did.[2] Gurjinder…

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 Kaur v R

Details

AGLC: Kaur v R [2017] NZCA 465
Case: [2017] NZCA 465
Decision Date: 17 October 2017 at 4.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ms Kaur, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. Ms Kaur appeals both her conviction and sentence. Ms Kaur argues that the trial judge should have admitted new evidence that she had been subjected to prolonged and serious physical, sexual and psychological abuse by her husband. She claims this evidence would have supported her defence of withdrawal from the murder plan. The Crown contends that the new evidence is neither credible nor cogent. The Court agrees with the Crown. The new evidence is neither credible nor cogent. It is based on a pattern of manipulative behaviour and chronic lying by Ms Kaur. The Court also finds that the new evidence would not have made any significant difference to the outcome of the trial. The Court dismisses the appeal against conviction. The Court also dismisses the appeal against sentence. The sentence was within range and appellate intervention is not warranted.

Orders