R v Alahakoon - [2013] NZHC 2316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-009-002323 [2013] NZHC 2316

REGINA

v

MUDIJANSELAGE VIRAJ WASANTHA KUMARA ALAHAKOON
and
THUVAN PRAWESH SAWAL

Hearing: 6 September 2013

Counsel: B M Stanaway and K B Bell for Crown
PHB Hall QC and K H Cook for Accused, MVW Alahakoon
J Brandts-Giesen and A McCormick for Accused, T P Sawal

Judgment: 6 September 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

[1] Mr Alahakoon and Mr Sawal, you have both been found guilty of murder and arson. 1

[2] Mr Alahakoon, you have been found guilty also of assault with a weapon and of male assaults female. Given, however, the seriousness of your other offending, I adopt the Crown’s submission and simply convict and discharge you on those matters.

[3] Turning then to the sentencing of you both on the murder and arson; the circumstances of the murder demand a sentence of life imprisonment. The focus of
this sentencing today is the minimum term that you must serve.

1 This is an anonymised version of the original judgment. Some details have been redacted.

REGINA v ALAHAKOON and SAWAL [2013] NZHC 2316 [6 September 2013]

[4] As to arson, the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. Given that the murder and the arson flow from essentially the same events, the sentence for arson will be concurrent with the sentence for murder.

Facts

[5] Both of you were friends of the victim, Mr Battelage. At some time in 2011, Mr Alahakoon, you discovered that your wife, [Ms ...] had an affair with Mr Battelage. You were plainly incensed by this and physically assaulted your wife on at least two occasions including by cutting her hair to shame her.

[6] Mr Sawal, you were also aware of the affair between Mr Battelage and [Ms ...], and in fact you developed your own friendship with her, at one stage inviting her to join you late one night while you were at the Alahakoon residence. By this time you, Mr Sawal, and Mr Alahakoon had become close friends. Mr Sawal you were unemployed and spent most days with Mr Alahakoon in his garage which was his place of work as a jewellery maker. I have little doubt that the topic of [Ms ...] infidelity was a matter of discussion between you.

[7] While it appears that previously both of you had a good relationship with Mr Battelage, in the months leading up to the murder neither of you had made much contact with him preferring, it appears, each other’s company. However, on the Sunday before the murder, Mr Battelage visited your house Mr Alahakoon for the purpose of purchasing some jewellery from you. That was then followed the next day with a trip by both of you to Mr Battelage’s home in Oxford. A can of petrol was taken with you on that trip. Mr Battelage was not home when you arrived, but you both entered his home and waited there. You did not think it necessary…

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 Alahakoon

Details

AGLC: R v Alahakoon [2013] NZHC 2316
Case: [2013] NZHC 2316
Decision Date: 6 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Whata J presided over the case of Regina v Mudiyanselage Viraj Wasantha Kumara Alahakoon and Thuvan Prawesh Sawal, both convicted of murder, arson, and related charges. The defendants were found guilty of murdering their friend, Mr. Battelage, and setting his house on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime. The case hinged on the joint actions of Alahakoon and Sawal, who had conspired to kill Mr. Battelage due to a prior affair involving Alahakoon's wife.

The court had to determine the appropriate minimum non-parole periods for the defendants' life sentences, as mandated by the Sentencing Act 2002. The judge considered several factors, including the degree of planning and the callousness and brutality of the murder, which qualified under section 104 of the Sentencing Act. Additionally, the judge evaluated the totality of the offending, including the arson, which was an attempt to cover up the murder.

Ultimately, Whata J determined that the appropriate minimum non-parole period for both Alahakoon and Sawal was 17 years. This decision was based on the level of planning involved, the callousness and brutality of the murder, and the aggravating factors associated with the arson. The judge also took into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and holding the defendants accountable for their actions.

In conclusion, both Alahakoon and Sawal were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The court's decision reflects the gravity of the crime and the need to protect the community, while also considering the specific circumstances of the case and the defendants' lack of remorse.

Orders