1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(a) and (b) and 66(1) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Sections 235(a) and 66(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v LEWIS [2018] NZHC 1877 [27 July 2018]

[3]This afternoon I will:

(1)set out your offending;

(2)discuss the victim impact statements;

(3)explain why a sentence of life imprisonment would not be manifestly unjust;

(4)determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI); and

(5)give you your final sentence.

Your offending

[4] The deceased, Mr Dhiman, was a 30-year-old Indian man, whom you met through Tinder.

[5] On 16 December 2017, you told a female friend that you and your “cousin” were planning to take an Indian for a drive and kill him. You were referring to Mr Karauria, the co-defendant, as your cousin.

[6] On 17 December 2017, Mr Karauria sent a text message asking if you were going to take Mr Dhiman’s vehicle. You replied that you were.

[7] Later, at about 3.30 pm on 17 December 2017, Mr Dhiman picked you and your female friend up and drove you to a liquor store in Napier. When he went into the store you and Mr Karauria continued to discuss through text messages, your plans. Mr Dhiman then drove to another store. While he was inside, you told your female friend that you wanted Mr Dhiman’s vehicle and that you were going to use him and kill him with Mr Karauria.

[8] At about 4.00 pm, Mr Dhiman then drove you both to his address and cooked you a meal. You also drank alcohol. During this time, you continued to exchange

texts with Mr Karauria. He messaged asking if you were serious about this, and you replied that you were. You then sent a further message to Mr Karauria confirming that you were keen to proceed and encouraging him to get Mr Dhiman’s phone and wallet. Mr Karauria then proposed that you would get Mr Dhiman to drive out to Tūtira and then you would go for a walk.

[9] At this stage, your text messages escalated in terms of gravity and intent. You messaged that you should run Mr Dhiman over, or Mr Karauria should smash him up, then ditch him. Mr Karauria agreed to the latter course and indicated that he would bring a pole with him. You then suggested stabbing Mr Dhiman to make sure he could not get back. Mr Karauria agreed and said that he would bring a butcher’s knife with him. You then emphasised the need to ensure that Mr Dhiman would not be able…

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 Lewis

Details

AGLC: R v Lewis [2018] NZHC 1877
Case: [2018] NZHC 1877
Decision Date: 27 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Napier Registry of the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Rosie Paige Lewis was heard, wherein the defendant pleaded guilty to charges of murder and aggravated robbery. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the crime, the circumstances surrounding the murder, and the impact on the victim's family. The court also had to decide on the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for the defendant, taking into account factors such as the degree of planning, the brutality of the crime, and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court found that the murder was meticulously planned, involving detailed communication between the defendant and her co-offender. The brutality of the crime was evident in the multiple stabbings and the subsequent actions taken to ensure the victim's death. The victim's family presented powerful impact statements, highlighting the profound and lasting effects of the crime. The court determined that a sentence of life imprisonment was warranted, given the gravity of the offence and the defendant's level of culpability. However, the court also considered the defendant's age at the time of the offence, her psychological and intellectual challenges, and her guilty plea in deciding the MPI. After careful deliberation, the court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for murder, with an MPI of 11 years, and three years for aggravated robbery, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Rosie Paige Lewis, be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Mr Dhiman, with an MPI of 11 years, and to three years' imprisonment for the charge of aggravated robbery, to be served concurrently. The court's decision reflected a balance between the need for justice and the mitigating factors presented by the defendant.

Orders