R v Kumar - [2024] NZHC 3253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2024-004-287

[2024] NZHC 3253

THE KING

v

MITESH KUMAR

Hearing: 5 November 2024

Appearances:

R McCoubrey and A Crumley for the Crown R M Mansfield KC for the defendant

Date:

5 November 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

R v KUMAR [2024] NZHC 3253 [5 November 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kumar, you pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to murder your former wife, Ms Kumar, and on two charges of failing to carry out obligations in relation to computer searches.

[2]My job today, on behalf of the community, is to sentence you for that offending.

[3] Before I do so, I acknowledge Ms Kumar’s family and friends, Ms Kumar herself, and in particular those who have spoken this morning. In a few minutes, I will say more about how your offending has affected Ms Kumar and her family. First, I will describe your offending. This description may be confronting for some of those present, but it is something I have to so, as sentencing is a public process.

The offending

[4] Mr Kumar, you and Ms Kumar married in 2005. You have two children. You separated in February 2023. At the time of your offending 11 months later in January 2024, you and Ms Kumar were still going through divorce procedures and trying to resolve relationship property issues.

[5] You arranged to meet Ms Kumar at a McDonald’s restaurant in Mt Roskill on 11 January 2024, with the promise that the two children would be present. At that time, Ms Kumar had not seen her children for four months.

[6] At about 7.40 pm that evening, you entered the restaurant and sat at a table waiting for Ms Kumar. Prior to entering the restaurant, you had armed yourself with a utility knife and concealed it in your left pants pocket. The knife had a retractable blade.

[7] As Ms Kumar approached the restaurant, she could see that the children were not with you. Because of this, Ms Kumar phoned you. You told her that the children were across the road. You convinced her to come in and wait for them inside.

[8] You then removed the knife from your pocket and concealed it under your left leg. Ms Kumar entered the restaurant and sat opposite you at the same table.

[9] You asked Ms Kumar about her accepting a lower divorce settlement offer. Ms Kumar did not want to talk about it. You then showed Ms Kumar a nude photograph of her on your phone and told her that you would show the photograph to people if she did not take the lower settlement offer.

[10] Ms Kumar stood up to leave. You stood up with her, removed the knife from under your leg, and then lunged forward at her. You grabbed Ms Kumar with your left hand and used your right thumb to extend the blade of the knife.…

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 Kumar

Details

AGLC: R v Kumar [2024] NZHC 3253
Case: [2024] NZHC 3253
Decision Date: 5 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Mr. Mitesh Kumar faced sentencing for his conviction of attempted murder against his former wife, Ms. Kumar, and two counts of failing to comply with obligations in relation to computer searches. The court heard how Mr. Kumar, armed with a knife, had ambushed and viciously attacked Ms. Kumar at a McDonald's restaurant in Mt Roskill, causing severe injuries that required immediate and ongoing medical treatment. The court considered the extensive physical and psychological trauma inflicted on Ms. Kumar and her family, as well as the impact on their children.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering factors such as the degree of premeditation, the level of violence, and the impact on the victim. The court also had to assess whether any adjustments should be made to the starting point, such as credit for the defendant’s guilty plea and mental health issues at the time of the offence. The court concluded that the starting point should be 11 years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the attempted murder, and adjusted it to account for the defendant's early guilty plea and previous good character, resulting in a final sentence of eight and a half years' imprisonment.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Kumar be sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder charge, and one month’s imprisonment for each of the computer search charges, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

Orders