R v Prakesh - [2022] NZHC 2365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-009-2484

[2022] NZHC 2365

THE KING

v

ELLIOT AJAY PRAKASH

Hearing: 15 September 2022

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh and P N M Brown for Crown K H Cook for Defendant

Judgment:

15 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Prakash, I will get you to stand at the conclusion of my sentencing remarks. You may remain seated until that point.

[2] Elliot Ajay Prakash, you are for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to the murder of Valerie Heaney following the provision of a sentence indication. As you are aware, murder carries the presumptive penalty of life imprisonment. There is no dispute that such a sentence is appropriate in this case and that will be the sentence. It is important to note, however, from the outset that such a sentence carries two important consequences. Firstly, if you are ever released it will be because the Parole Board is satisfied you no longer pose a risk to the community. Secondly, even then, you will remain subject to recall on account of any conduct indicating an emergence of risk.

THE KING v PRAKASH [2022] NZHC 2365 [15 September 2022]

The facts

[3] It is necessary that I set out the factual basis upon which I sentence you. Ms Heaney was a 64-year-old caregiver who lived in her own property in Christchurch. You had boarded with Ms Heaney for some 16 months. It is suggested in the summary of facts that you had a sexual relationship with Ms Heaney. You deny that was the case, although in one report you admit at one time being intimately involved with her. The two of you maintained separate bedrooms. Whatever the position, it is apparent the relationship was of a closeness that went beyond one of landlady and tenant. You accept that was the case and that you often socialised together.

[4] The two of you were at home at around 3.30 pm on the afternoon of Sunday the 3rd of April this year, watching a rugby game on television. A heated argument developed. Despite your friendship there had been ongoing tension building between you over some time and you acknowledged to the pre-sentence report writer that there had been verbal aggression and hostility. As a result of this argument, Ms Heaney wrote out a letter advising that you had one week’s notice to leave her property due to your “ongoing abuse and threats towards her”. This was handed to you but you screwed it up and threw it into the corner of your room.

[5] Ms Heaney drafted another letter to you outlining reasons why she was only giving you one week’s notice of eviction. In that letter she listed some of the threats you had made to her, including “I’ll see you end up in the ground with your daughter”. Ms Heaney’s daughter passed away in late 2021.

[6] Ms Heaney was, at this time, sitting…

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 Prakesh

Details

AGLC: R v Prakesh [2022] NZHC 2365
Case: [2022] NZHC 2365
Decision Date: 15 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Elliot Ajay Prakash, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Valerie Heaney. The sentencing hearing took place in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The central legal issue was determining the appropriate non-parole period to accompany the life sentence, given the aggravating features of the crime. The court identified several aggravating features, including the vulnerability of the victim, the violation of her home, the use of a weapon, the level of violence, and the defendant's callous conduct after the murder. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as the defendant's guilty plea and expressions of remorse, but found that these were outweighed by the gravity of the crime. After reviewing relevant case law and the circumstances of the offending, the court determined a starting point for the non-parole period of 14.5 years. The court applied a one-year deduction for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a non-parole period of 13 years. The final sentence imposed was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years. The court also noted that the defendant would remain subject to recall if released and deemed to still pose a risk to the community.

Orders