R v Dawood - [2013] NZHC 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2011-085-4286 [2013] NZHC 122

THE QUEEN

v

NAJEEB DAWOOD

Hearing: 8 February 2013

Counsel: T Gilbert for Crown
I M Antunovic for Prisoner
Interpreter present

Sentencing: 8 February 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] Mr Dawood, you appear today for sentence for the murder of your wife, Eman Hurmiz, on 2 September 2011. The law requires that I must pass a sentence of life imprisonment and fix a minimum period which you must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

[2] You are also for sentence for the aggravated wounding of your older daughter

Abeer on the same day and three charges arising from an earlier incident on 16

November 2010. They are threatening to kill Eman, assaulting your younger daughter, who was then aged 13, and possession of a knife in circumstances showing an intent to use it to commit a crime of violence. For all of these crimes you will
receive concurrent sentences meaning that you serve them at the same time.

R v DAWOOD HC WN CRI-2011-085-4286 [8 February 2013]

[3] You pleaded guilty to the murder and wounding charges on 23 April 2012, the date of your first appearance in this Court, and you admitted the remaining charges on 14 May. You have since been remanded in custody for a long time while psychiatric assessments were carried out. There are now four expert reports. They address the question whether I should make some allowance, and if so how much, for your mental health at the time of the killing and your difficulties in coming to terms with life in New Zealand.

[4] Before discussing that evidence I will outline the facts.

[5] You identify as a Christian Arab of Chaldean ethnicity, and you were born in a rural area near the northern Iraqi city of Fallujah. You married Eman in Iraq in 1987 and there are four children of the marriage. They were aged between 23 and 14 when you killed your wife.

[6] You used violence to control your wife from the very beginning of your marriage. Sometimes it was inflicted in the presence of the children or involved them in some way. It had its origins in your unreasonable belief that Eman was unfaithful to you. You were pathologically suspicious of her and rigidly insistent on what you believe is the right of a husband in Iraqi culture to control the behaviour of his wife and children, by force if he thinks fit. I will note two historic incidents in particular. In 1996 or 1997 you stabbed Eman in the arm with a knife, in the presence of your eldest daughter. In 2001 you punched Eman in the head four times, claiming that each punch represented one of the children.

[7] Sometime before 2008 you and your family fled Iraq for Syria. For some reason which has never been reliably explained the family later separated and you returned to Iraq for a time.

[8] Eman…

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 Dawood

Details

AGLC: R v Dawood [2013] NZHC 122
Case: [2013] NZHC 122
Decision Date: 8 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dawood involved the sentencing of the accused, Najib Dawood, for the murder of his wife, Eman Hurmiz, and other related charges. Dawood had pleaded guilty to murder, aggravated wounding, and other charges arising from incidents of domestic violence. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these crimes, taking into account the circumstances of the offences, the background of the offender, and any mitigating factors. The court had to decide whether to impose a minimum sentence of 17 years for the murder charge, as mandated by law, or if there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant a shorter minimum term.

In delivering the judgment, the court outlined the facts of the case, highlighting the history of domestic violence and controlling behaviour exhibited by Dawood towards his wife and children. The court also considered the mitigating factors presented, such as the offender's guilty plea, mental health issues, and cultural dislocation. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the crime fell into the category requiring a 17-year minimum sentence for the murder charge. However, the court allowed for a reduction of 10% for the guilty plea and 5% for mental health issues and abnormal jealousy, resulting in a minimum sentence of 16 years and three months. Ultimately, the court concluded that a minimum period of less than 17 years would be manifestly unjust, and sentenced Dawood to life imprisonment with a 17-year minimum for the murder charge, as well as concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The final orders of the court included a life sentence for the murder charge with a 17-year minimum, four years imprisonment for the aggravated wounding charge, and nine months imprisonment for each of the other charges, to be served concurrently. The court also noted that Dawood had previously received a first warning under the three strikes law and would be provided with a corrected copy upon his release from court.

Orders