R v Kamal - [2014] NZHC 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-044-000743 [2014] NZHC 698

THE QUEEN

v

KUMAR ANAL KAMAL

Hearing: 8 April 2014

Appearances:

B R Northwood for the Crown
J B Wickliffe for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 April 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J

R v KAMAL [2014] NZHC 698 [8 April 2014]

[1] Mr Kamal, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Brief facts

[2] On 16 February 2013 at about 7.00 pm, the victim, your wife, returned home with her 20 year old daughter. You were at home waiting for her and had been thinking about killing her. This was because two days earlier she had told you that she did not want to have intimate relations with you as a result of which you suspected that she was having an affair with another man. You had considered killing her by strangulation. You had also considered chopping into her neck but had abandoned that idea because you did not think it would feel right.

[3] When your wife returned home you confronted her and accused her of seeing another man. An argument developed and you twice threatened to kill her. You then took a 30 centimetre long chef ’s knife from the kitchen bench before grabbing the victim by her hair and dragging her into the bedroom, shutting the door behind you. You made her sit on the bed and you stood in front of her. When she swore at you, you became even more enraged and you stabbed her four times with the knife attempting to kill her. You intended and expected her to die as a result of the injuries you inflicted.

[4] The victim called out to her daughter for help and ran out onto the driveway where she was attended to by neighbours. You then walked out of the room and told the victim’s daughter what you had done and told her to call the police. You put the knife down on the kitchen bench and waited in the driveway for the police to arrive.

Victim impact

[5] The victim suffered a deep laceration to her forearm and puncture wounds to her abdomen and chest. She also received a laceration on her head, just above her ear. She was taken to hospital where she underwent emergency surgery for a laceration to her liver.

[6] The victim continues to suffer terribly as a result of what you did to her. At the time you attacked her she was terrified, knowing how violent you can be, she feared for her life. She was also very worried about her daughter’s safety. She has suffered considerable pain as a result of her injuries and continues to do so. She was unable to drive for three months and has only recently been able to return to work. She says that she will never forget what you did to her and her…

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 Kamal

Details

AGLC: R v Kamal [2014] NZHC 698
Case: [2014] NZHC 698
Decision Date: 8 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Kamal was heard on 8 April 2014, with the defendant, Kumar Anal Kamal, pleading guilty to one charge of attempted murder. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Kamal, who had attempted to murder his wife by stabbing her multiple times with a kitchen knife. The court had to consider the principles and purposes of sentencing, the aggravating factors of the crime, and Kamal's personal circumstances, including his guilty plea.

The court evaluated the seriousness of the offence, noting the extensive violence, premeditation, severity of the injuries inflicted, use of a weapon, and the vulnerability of the victim. Given these factors, the court placed Kamal's offending at the upper end of band 2 or the lower end of band 3 as per the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment in Taueki, resulting in a starting point of nine years' imprisonment. After considering personal factors such as Kamal's lack of prior convictions, his isolated incident of offending, and his cultural adjustment issues, the court applied a 25% discount for his guilty plea. The final sentence imposed was six years and nine months' imprisonment.

The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation, reflecting society's abhorrence of such serious violent offences. Kamal's sentence, which is consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases, aims to hold him accountable for his actions and to prevent future offending.

Orders