R v Krishna - [2023] NZHC 1205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-007369

[2023] NZHC 1205

THE KING

v

VIKHIL KRISHNA

Appearances:
Y H Olsen for Crown

R M Mansfield KC (by VMR), K J Brosnahan and O W L Troon for Prisoner

Date:

23 May 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREW J

R v KRISHNA [2023] NZHC 1205 [23 May 2023]

Introduction

[1]Mr Krishna, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] Mr Krishna, at the age of 25, you appear this morning for sentence having been found guilty by a jury on a charge of murder, the murder of Ms Trinity Oliver. Trinity was only 16 years old at the time of her death and you were then 23 years old.

[3]The charge of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.1

[4] Section 102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 requires me to sentence you to imprisonment for life unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. In this case, both counsel agree that life imprisonment is required; no submission is made on your behalf that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. I, too, am satisfied that I must impose a sentence of life imprisonment. and accordingly, that will be your sentence.

[5] As you know, the critical issue I must determine today is the minimum period of imprisonment you must serve before becoming eligible for parole. Now I want to address the facts of the offending.

Relevant facts

[6] In mid-June 2021, a relationship of sorts began between you and Trinity. At the time Trinity was 16 and you were 23. It is likely that the relationship was of an intimate nature. There was frequent contact between the two of you at this time, usually over the phone or by text messages.

[7] In July 2021, Trinity called the Police following an incident in your vehicle. You lost your temper after Trinity’s puppy had an accident. As Trinity was trying to get out of the vehicle, you pulled her puppy off her, choking it in the process. You also pulled Trinity’s bag off her and she called 111.

[8]It appears that after this your relationship had largely come to an end.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172.

[9] In early September 2021, during the COVID-19 level 4 lockdown, you began to message Trinity again. You asked her if she wanted to do drugs together and further texts you sent to her referred to using methamphetamine.

[10] The two of you met up on the afternoon of Thursday, 9 September 2021. Trinity had agreed to meet you to smoke some drugs together.

[11] Trinity returned home following the first meet-up on that day. You then picked her up for a second time at about 11.30 pm on Thursday, 9 September 2021, and Trinity remained with you over the next few days and until her death.

[12] You first went to Flat Bush where a friend gave you a bag of…

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 Krishna

Details

AGLC: R v Krishna [2023] NZHC 1205
Case: [2023] NZHC 1205
Decision Date: 23 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Krishna was heard on 23 May 2023. The defendant, Vikhil Krishna, was found guilty of murdering Trinity Oliver, a 16-year-old girl, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The primary legal issue was determining the minimum period of imprisonment before Krishna would be eligible for parole. Both parties agreed that life imprisonment was appropriate, but they differed on the minimum term required.

The court considered the gravity of the crime, Krishna's culpability, and the circumstances surrounding the murder. The court found that the murder was premeditated and involved significant violence, including a sustained assault and strangulation. Additionally, the court noted the callousness of Krishna abandoning Trinity's body and his subsequent attempts to evade responsibility. The court also acknowledged mitigating factors, such as Krishna's young age at the time of the offence, his methamphetamine addiction, and the presence of drug-induced psychosis. These factors contributed to the explanation of why the offence occurred.

After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined a starting point of 15 years for the minimum period of imprisonment. However, after considering the mitigating factors, the court reduced this by 12 months, resulting in a final minimum period of 14 years. Therefore, Krishna was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years before he would be eligible for parole.

Orders