Legal Research
Cases
R v Akash

R v Akash

Case [2022] NZHC 1387 14 June 2022

Especially Bad Murder

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-057-000606

[2022] NZHC 1387

THE QUEEN

v

AKASH

Hearing: 14 June 2022

Counsel:

G R Kayes and M Djurich for Crown

J-A Kincade QC and A Shendi for Defendant

Judgment:

14 June 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. J-A Kincade QC, Auckland. A Shendi, Auckland.

R v AKASH [2022] NZHC 1387 [14 June 2022]

Introduction and background

[1] Mr Akash, you appear for sentence for murdering Gurpreet Kaur, your pregnant girlfriend. You were found guilty by a jury at a trial at which I presided. It is common ground you must be imprisoned for life. The contentious issue is the time you must serve before you become eligible for parole. The law calls this a minimum period of imprisonment. This I set today.

[2] Your offending occurred 7 April 2016. You and the victim, Gurpreet Kaur, had been in a relationship for a year or so. You were then 24; she 22. Ms Kaur was between seven and 10 weeks pregnant to you, something she and you both knew.

[3] Your relationship with Ms Kaur was volatile. It was marred by your jealousy, insecurity and suspicions of infidelity. The situation was not helped by Ms Kaur’s marriage of convenience to another, whom I call S. Ms Kaur married S in 2014 to help him stay in New Zealand. There is no evidence the relationship with S involved anything more than this.

[4] Before going further, I acknowledge the presence of Ms Kaur’s mother and father, and Mr Akash’s brother and also a member of the jury.

The offending

[5] I turn to the critical day. You collected Ms Kaur from the Manurewa train station at 8 am, 7 April 2016. You stopped for fuel at a service station in Papakura. Closed-circuit television imagery from the service station showed you striking, or at least attempting to strike, Ms Kaur to the stomach. You then drove to a home in Meremere. You there purchased methamphetamine from someone who regularly supplied you that drug.

[6] Sometime before 12.11 pm that day, you parked the car and killed Ms Kaur with a knife. You stabbed and cut her not fewer than 30 times while she was inside the car. I articulate the injuries because of their relevance to today’s exercise:

(a)You stabbed Ms Kaur to the left breast and twice to the right breast; each alone of those to the right could have caused death.

(b)You twice stabbed Ms Kaur to the lower chest; each alone could have caused death.

(c)You twice stabbed Ms Kaur to the abdomen. One of the abdomen wounds could have been fatal.

(d)You stabbed her three times to the right flank.

(e)You inflicted five wounds to her left temple, left jaw, left cheek and chin.

(f)You inflicted six wounds to her neck; one injured the jugular vein. This alone could have been fatal.

(g)You twice cut Ms…

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 R v Akash

Details

AGLC: R v Akash [2022] NZHC 1387
Case: [2022] NZHC 1387
Decision Date: 14 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Akash was found guilty of murdering his pregnant girlfriend, Gurpreet Kaur. The court was required to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment before Akash would be eligible for parole. The primary legal issue was whether Akash's mental health at the time of the murder warranted a reduction in the minimum period of imprisonment. The court also considered other factors such as Akash's post-offence conduct, the brutality of the murder, and the impact on the victim's family.

The court acknowledged that Akash suffered from schizophrenia and was experiencing delusions at the time of the murder. However, the court found that Akash's mental health did not satisfactorily explain his many lies to the police and the steps he took to avoid detection. The court considered the influence of Akash's mental illness on his offending, but also took into account his methamphetamine use and volatile relationship with the victim. The court found that Akash's mental health had an appreciable role in the offending, but not to the extent argued by Akash. The court deducted three years from the 18-year starting point in acknowledgement of the influence of Akash's mental health on his offending.

The court found that Akash's offending was especially bad due to the high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. The court considered whether a 17-year minimum period would be manifestly unjust, given Akash's mental health at the time of the murder. The court concluded that a 15-year minimum period was appropriate, as it emphasised the role played by Akash's mental health in the offending, while also acknowledging its brutal, cruel and callous nature.

The final orders of the court were that Akash be sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a minimum period of 15 years' imprisonment.

Orders