Najeeb Dawood Dawood v The Queen

[2013] NZSC 118

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 97/2013
[2013] NZSC 118

BETWEEN	NAJEEB DAWOOD DAWOOD Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	C J Tennet for the Applicant K A L Bicknell for the Respondent
Judgment:	13 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Mr Dawood seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his sentence appeal.[1]

Background

[1]Dawood v R [2013] NZCA 381.

1. On 2 September 2011 Mr Dawood murdered his wife.  He also stabbed and wounded his eldest daughter who was attempting to come to her mother’s assistance.

2. On 23 April 2012 Mr Dawood pleaded guilty to murder (at his first appearance in the High Court).  On 14 May he admitted other charges relating to wounding his eldest daughter, assaulting his younger daughter on a different occasion, threatening to kill his wife on a different occasion and possession of a knife.

3. As is evident from the other charges, there had been a history of threats and violence by Mr Dawood in the family. The murder itself was planned and showed a high level of brutality: his wife was stabbed 55 times while tied to a chair with masking tape.

Sentencing approach

1. Miller J sentenced Mr Dawood on 8 February 2013[2] to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years imprisonment under s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

   [2]R v Dawood [2013] NZHC 122.

2. Miller J considered that an appropriate minimum period would be 19 years, before taking into account mitigating factors.  He then considered the mitigating factors of the guilty plea and Mr Dawood’s depression and abnormal jealousy.  He said that these would normally have resulted in a 15 per cent discount,[3] which would have resulted in a minimum period of 16 years and three months.

   [3]10 per cent for the guilty plea and five per cent for the depression and abnormal jealousy.

3. The Judge then considered whether a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment would be manifestly unjust in the circumstances.  Miller J considered that it would not, given the number and gravity of the qualifying factors that attracted the minimum period of imprisonment in the first place.  He said that he was “unable to accept that a minimum of 17 years is manifestly unjust for this unusually calculated and brutal crime.  This is not to overlook the mitigating factors.  But for them the appropriate minimum would be 19 years.”

Result

1. The case raises no issue of principle and nothing put forward on behalf of Mr Dawood indicates a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice.

2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office for Respondent