R v Prasad - [2012] NZHC 2891

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2011-032-004065 [2012] NZHC 2891

THE CROWN

v

NARAYAN PRASAD

Counsel: K S Grau and S A H Bishop for Crown
G R Fulton for Prisoner

Sentence: 2 November 2012

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Prasad, you appear for sentence on 31 counts of sexual offending against three victims. All but two of your convictions relate to offences committed when the victims were under the age of 12.

[2] There are four preliminary points I wish to make:

(1)I record that you have told the author of the pre-sentence report that you intend to appeal. That is your right. The fact you intend to
appeal does not impact on the sentence that I am going to impose.

R V PRASAD HC WN CRI-2011-032-004065 [2 November 2012]

(2)You continue to deny any wrongdoing. From my perspective it is clear the complainants gave compelling evidence which the jury accepted in relation to all but one count, which was distinguishable from the other counts.

(3)Sentencing you poses a number of difficult challenges. Your counsel has on a previous occasion advised the Court that you were warned that you face a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The Crown recommends a prison sentence that is almost twice that term. This disparity highlights the difficulties which your case poses when it comes to sentencing.

(4)I have received and considered the victim impact statements prepared by your three victims. It is clear that your offending has had a profoundly adverse effect upon their lives.

[3] In sentencing you I shall:

(1) briefly explain your offending;

(2) explain the methodology I propose to adopt; (3) set the starting point;
(4) examine what changes if any need to be made to the starting point; (5) explain why a minimum period of imprisonment is justified; and (6) explain the end sentence.

[4] The written copy of my sentencing notes will contain a number of footnote references to cases and legislative provisions. I shall not refer to those footnotes during the course of this sentencing hearing.

Your offending

[5] Your offending against JW started when she was a young girl visiting a property that you and your wife rented in Wellington. You indecently assaulted JW. Your offending against JW escalated after you and your wife moved to Petone. There you induced JW to do indecent acts upon you, you raped JW and on one occasion you sodomised her. She was still a young girl, aged seven to nine years when all this offending occurred. Your final offence against JW occurred when you were living at Stokes Valley. JW was attending intermediate school. You raped her on the evening of a school disco and dropped her off at the disco in a bloodied and distraught state.

[6] Most of your offending against BW occurred at your Stokes Valley home. Some offending…

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 [2012] NZHC 2891
Case: [2012] NZHC 2891
Decision Date: 2 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the Crown sought sentencing for Narayan Prasad on 31 counts of sexual offending against three victims. All but two of the convictions related to offences committed when the victims were under the age of 12. The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether a minimum period of imprisonment was justified. The court considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the principles of denunciation, deterrence, accountability, and community protection. The court determined that the starting point for the four rapes of the victim AB, treated as the lead offences, should be 16 years' imprisonment. After considering the totality of the offending, the court decided that the starting point was proportionate. The court also found that a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary for denunciation, deterrence, and accountability, imposing a minimum term of eight years.

The court sentenced Narayan Prasad to 16 years' imprisonment for the rapes of AB, seven years for the rapes and sodomy of JW, and five years for the unlawful sexual connection and indecent acts involving BW and JW. All sentences were to run concurrently. Prasad was also to serve a minimum period of eight years' imprisonment. The court annexed a schedule to its written reasons explaining the sentence for each count. The final orders of the court were that Prasad was to serve 16 years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of eight years.

Orders