R v Prasad - [2018] NZHC 3225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-009-008327

[2018] NZHC 3225

THE QUEEN

v

SHIU PRASAD

Hearing: 7 December 2018

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh and S Bicknell-Young for the Crown A M McCormick for the Defendant

Judgment:

7 December 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] Mr Prasad, you are for sentence after pleading guilty to one charge of murder and one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Facts

[2] You married the victim, Ms Naicker, in December 2013. On 8 September 2018, you had an argument which resulted in Ms Naicker moving out of the home and saying she no longer wanted to be in a relationship with you.

[3] I accept you were devastated by this. The manager at your work recognised how distressed you were and allowed you to take a week off work. You went to Fiji

R v PRASAD [2018] NZHC 3225 [7 December 2018]

to talk over matters with your family. You also talked to your wife’s family. That brought you no comfort and, after two days, you returned to New Zealand.

[4] Over the course of the following week, you sent Ms Naicker a number of text messages and attempted to call her over a hundred times. She did not respond to most of these calls and messages. In the messages, you told Ms Naicker you still loved her, challenged her about having a new boyfriend, and threatened to expose her infidelity to her family in Fiji. You also threatened to commit suicide. You wrote two suicide notes which were later found by Police.

[5] On 15 September, Ms Naicker’s new boyfriend, Mr Sharan, who is the second victim, walked to Ms Naicker’s place of work on Ilam Road with the intention of meeting her between shifts. You drove past Mr Sharan and stared at him. Although Mr Sharan had never met you, he correctly guessed your identity because of concerns Ms Naicker had raised to him. He called Ms Naicker and they agreed to meet at the Bush Inn mall instead.

[6] Later, while Ms Naicker and Mr Sharan were walking back from the Bush Inn mall, you again drove past and saw them together. You returned home and sent Ms Naicker a text message challenging her about seeing her with another man. After consuming two glasses of wine, you decided to confront Ms Naicker at her place of work. You took a kitchen knife with a 21 cm blade, with the intention of stabbing her.

[7] While lying in wait in some shrubbery outside Ms Naicker’s workplace, you drank a bottle of wine. During this time, Mr Sharan arrived to pick Ms Naicker up from work. It appears you and Mr Sharan did not see each other at this point.

[8] At 7:45 pm, Ms Naicker exited the front door of her workplace and met Mr Sharan. Almost immediately, you ran up behind them and stabbed…

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 [2018] NZHC 3225
Case: [2018] NZHC 3225
Decision Date: 7 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Prasad involved the defendant, Shiu Prasad, who was sentenced after pleading guilty to charges of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The defendant had a history of sending numerous messages and calls to his estranged wife, Ms Naicker, following their separation. On 15 September 2018, the defendant confronted his wife and her new boyfriend, Mr Sharan, at her workplace, stabbing both individuals. Ms Naicker died from her injuries, while Mr Sharan survived. Following the attack, the defendant attempted suicide but was unsuccessful.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, specifically the minimum term of imprisonment for the murder charge under Section 103 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court also had to consider whether Section 104 applied, which would mandate a minimum term of 17 years due to the brutality and callousness of the murder. The defence argued that the murder was reckless rather than premeditated, and thus, Section 104 should not apply.

The court found that while the defendant's actions exhibited some degree of callousness, they did not meet the threshold of high brutality or callousness required to engage Section 104. The court noted the premeditated nature of the attack, the level of violence, and the extent of harm caused, but also observed that the defendant's actions were driven more by misdirected emotion than a lack of feeling. Consequently, the court determined an appropriate minimum term of 13 and a half years for the murder charge, uplifted by 18 months for the wounding charge, resulting in a total sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 13 years for murder and a concurrent sentence of six years for the wounding charge. The defendant received a two-year discount for his early guilty plea.

Orders