Legal Research
Cases
R v Mehrok

R v Mehrok

Case [2020] NZHC 2722 15 October 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2016-070-2233

[2020] NZHC 2722

THE QUEEN

v

SURENDER SINGH MEHROK

Hearing: 15 October 2020

Appearances:

K Raftery QC and J M Sutton for the Crown R Stevens and K Hadaway for the Defendant

Sentencing:

15 October 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Public Defence Service, Tauranga

Counsel: K Raftery QC, Auckland

R v MEHROK [2020] NZHC 2722 [15 October 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Mehrok you are for sentence having been found guilty of manslaughter by a jury.

Facts

[2] The victim was Richard Royal Orif Takahi Winiata Uddin. Baby Royal, as he was known, was just 14 weeks old when he died. He was the infant son of Nikita Winiata-Uddin, who was, or had been, your partner.

[3] The events occurred in a house in Tauranga. You were living in the garage along with another boarder, Sukwinder Singh. Ms Winiata-Uddin and baby Royal were living in the house on the property. The tenancy was held by another woman, who I will refer to simply by her Christian name, Tatiana. She lived in the house along with her partner, their two children and Tatiana’s two children from a former relationship. The oldest child was a five year old boy, T. The youngest was still an infant, three months older than baby Royal.

[4] In the early evening of 7 June 2016, everyone was at home. Ms Winiata-Uddin, Tatiana and her partner together with one of their children went out to get takeaway pizza for dinner. They were away for about half an hour.

[5] You were left in charge of baby Royal while Sukwinder was in charge of Tatiana’s three children, the six month old and the two older boys.

[6] Initially you were all in the sitting room and the children were dressed ready for bed. After about 10 minutes baby Royal started to cry. You picked him up, walked around with him and tried to give him some milk. He did not stop crying. You went into one of the bedrooms carrying baby Royal on three or four occasions. Tatiana’s five year old son, T, saw you in the bedroom with baby Royal. Sukwinder did not see what happened as he remained in the lounge with the other children.

[7] T described your conduct towards baby Royal in various ways. He said in an interview on 8 June 2016 you threw the baby on the bed hard and hit the baby in the

face with your hand; he said in an interview on 11 August 2016 that you threw the baby on the bed, describing it as a little throw; in evidence taken on 13 December 2016 he said you threw the baby onto the bed and that the baby’s head nearly hit the wall. He also said you did not hit the baby. To other witnesses he said you had hit the baby and thrown the…

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 Mehrok

Details

AGLC: R v Mehrok [2020] NZHC 2722
Case: [2020] NZHC 2722
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gordon J was tasked with sentencing Surender Singh Mehrok, who had been found guilty of manslaughter by a jury for the death of 14-week-old Royal Winiata Uddin. The key legal issue was determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the extreme violence used against a highly vulnerable infant. The court assessed the nature and extent of the force applied, the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the defendant's prior offending. The court also considered personal mitigating factors such as the defendant's age and the impact of imprisonment on him. After evaluating these factors, the court decided on a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, adjusted for personal factors and an offer to plead guilty, resulting in a sentence of seven years and nine months, with a mandatory minimum term of 50% of the sentence.

The court acknowledged the extreme nature of the violence inflicted on the infant and the profound breach of trust by the defendant, who was responsible for the child's care. The court also noted the defendant's previous convictions for violence against children, which warranted an uplift in the starting point. However, the court recognised mitigating factors such as the defendant's age and his difficult personal circumstances, which led to a discount of five percent. Additionally, the court granted a 15 percent discount for the defendant's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, albeit not at the earliest opportunity. The court ultimately determined that a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary to hold the defendant accountable for the harm caused, denounce the conduct, and deter similar offending.

Orders