R v Prasad - [2022] NZHC 1129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-1470

[2022] NZHC 1129

THE QUEEN

v

NIRAJ NILESH PRASAD

Hearing: 20 May 2022

Appearances:

B Hawes and J H Whitcombe for Crown J R Rapley QC for Defendant

Judgment:

20 May 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF OSBORNE J

R v PRASAD [2022] NZHC 1129 [20 May 2022]

[1] Mr Prasad, there are a number of matters I need to discuss before I impose a final sentence. You may remain seated while I am talking and I will indicate towards the end when you need to stand.

[2] Niraj Nilesh Prasad, you appear for sentence today on a charge of murder.1 On 21 February 2021 you murdered Faiz Ali at his home in Christchurch. The jury found you guilty of that charge.

[3] You also appear today for conviction and sentence for assaulting Nalini Roy, a person whom you were in a family relationship with, on 25 August 2020, a charge to which you pleaded guilty.2

[4] Given the gravity of the murder charge, most of my remarks to you will be focused on sentence for murder.

[5] As you have heard counsel discuss, the sentence for murder is life imprisonment, unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. In your case, there is no suggestion that such a sentence would be unjust — so life imprisonment will be your sentence. That means you will only ever be released on parole from prison if the Parole Board considers it is safe for you to live within the community. If you are ever released from prison, you could be recalled to serve your life sentence if, at any time, it is brought to the attention of the Parole Board that you are again assessed as being a risk to the community.

[6] The single question for me today in relation to the charge of murder is what minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) you should serve as a condition of that life sentence. The MPI is the period you must spend in prison before parole is even considered a possibility. I emphasise the word possibility because even after the expiry of the MPI you will only get parole if the Parole Board considers that it is appropriate in terms of the risk you pose.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172.
2 Crimes Act, s 194A.

[7] In order to determine the MPI appropriate in your case, Mr Prasad, I must consider a number of matters so I first start by summarising what you did on 21 February 2021.

The facts

[8] Your killing of Mr Ali arose out of the way you reacted to the end of your relationship with Ms Roy and the decision of Ms Roy and Mr Ali to have a relationship. You became separated from Ms Roy in August 2020 as a result of your assault upon her for which you will also be convicted today. As a result of…

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 Prasad

Details

AGLC: R v Prasad [2022] NZHC 1129
Case: [2022] NZHC 1129
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Niraj Nilesh Prasad was convicted of murdering Faiz Ali and of assaulting Nalini Roy. The sentencing hearing in the High Court of New Zealand considered the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for the murder charge and the appropriate sentence for the assault charge. The court found that the murder was highly premeditated and brutal, warranting a minimum period of imprisonment of 18 years and six months. The court rejected arguments for provocation and for mitigation on the basis of the defendant's previous good character and remorse. The court also sentenced the defendant to three months' imprisonment for the assault charge, to be served concurrently with the sentence for murder. The court found that a sentence of at least 17 years for the murder was not manifestly unjust.

Orders