R v Narayan - [2012] NZHC 2823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-110 [2012] NZHC 2823

THE QUEEN

v

NEHA NARAYAN

Hearing: 26 October 2012

Counsel: M Williams for the Crown
R Mansfield for Ms Narayan

Judgment: 26 October 2012

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr M Williams, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr R Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland

R V NARAYAN HC AK CRI-2012-092-110 [26 October 2012]

[1] Ms Narayan, you can remain seated. I do realise it is difficult for you, but it is most necessary that I explain the sentence that I am going to impose. I need to explain it to you, of course. But I need also to explain it to those who were affected by what happened, and to the community as a whole. I do understand that these things are painful for you and have resulted in serious difficulties to you and your health in the last few weeks. But you have assistance available to you and I think if you can make the most of that you will get through it.

[2] You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnapping a new born baby. In accordance with the sentencing indication that I gave on 7
September 2012, and as I have already stated in discussions with counsel, the sentence I will impose today is 2 years intensive supervision, with special conditions attached to that in relation to treatment and associated matters, together with 200 hours community work that you will need to do, but the community work will not commence for 9 months.

[3] The sentence indication that I gave was based in particular on the following:

(a) The summary of facts prepared by the prosecution and which you accepted.

(b)There were three psychiatric or psychological reports about your mental health that I had at that time.

(c) There was the mother’s victim impact statement which I had available at that point.

(d)And there were, of course, at the sentence indication hearing the submissions from the Crown as well as those from Mr Mansfield on your behalf.

[4] You pleaded guilty soon after that sentence indication was given, and that is a fact that goes substantially to your credit.

[5] I have subsequently received a pre-sentence report and two further reports from one of the psychologists, Dr Sakdalan. That further information, as will be apparent from what I have already said, does not alter the basis on which the sentence indication was given.

The facts

[6] I will state the objective facts of what happened concisely.

[7] The abduction occurred when you walked out of a hospital with a baby born that day. You got into a car in the hospital carpark. The car was driven by your former partner. The baby was recovered without any difficulty and without any harm to the baby while you were still in the carpark in the car. The baby was away from her mother for only a few minutes.

[8]…

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 Narayan

Details

AGLC: R v Narayan [2012] NZHC 2823
Case: [2012] NZHC 2823
Decision Date: 26 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Narayan involved Neha Narayan, who was convicted of kidnapping a newborn baby from a hospital. The matter was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Ms. Narayan, taking into account her mental health conditions and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence. These included the summary of facts accepted by the defendant, psychiatric and psychological reports on her mental health, a victim impact statement from the baby's mother, and submissions from both the Crown and the defence. Notably, Ms. Narayan had pleaded guilty, which the court considered a significant mitigating factor. Additionally, the court received further psychiatric and psychological reports after the initial sentencing indication, which did not alter the basis for the earlier decision.

The court's reasoning focused on the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's complex psychological difficulties, and her genuine remorse. Given her mental health issues and the lack of any malicious intent, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment or other forms of detention would not be appropriate. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of 2 years of intensive supervision with special conditions aimed at her rehabilitation. These conditions included mandatory psychological and psychiatric treatment, regular mental state assessments, and restrictions on her contact with babies or young children. Furthermore, Ms. Narayan was sentenced to 200 hours of community work, to commence after a 9-month delay.

In conclusion, the court ordered Neha Narayan to serve 2 years of intensive supervision with specific conditions to address her mental health needs and prevent any recurrence of such behaviour. She was also required to undertake 200 hours of community work, starting nine months after the sentencing date.

Orders