R v Rajamani - [2009] NZCA 225

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA510/2008
[2009] NZCA 225
THE QUEEN
v
LAXMAN RAJAMANI
Hearing:1 April 2009

Court:Glazebrook, Hammond and Chambers JJ
Counsel:P E Dacre for Appellant

D La Hood for Crown

Judgment:2 June 2009 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
A murder appeal
[1]       On 13 January 2005, Laxman Rajamani, the appellant, killed his wife, Chitra Ramakrishnan. He slit her throat. While the trial judge, Potter J, left to the jury the issue as to whether Mr Rajamani had a murderous intent, the only plausible defence was in fact provocation. That issue was also left to the jury, who rejected it. The jury found Mr Rajamani guilty of murder.
[2]       Mr Rajamani now appeals against his conviction.
Issues on the appeal
[3]       Mr Dacre, for Mr Rajamani, raised two issues on the appeal. The first, which was advanced at Mr Rajamani’s insistence, was that the judge had failed to sum up properly on the defence of provocation. It was said that the judge’s direction suggested that the loss of the power of self control was akin to automatism. It was also said that the direction was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Timoti [2006] 1 NZLR 323. While Mr Dacre said everything that could possibly be said in support of Mr Rajamani’s complaint, it is quite clear this complaint has no merit at all. Potter J gave the jury a very helpful question trail, which had been discussed with and approved by counsel before her summing-up. The question trail, and the oral comments made in further explanation of it, were entirely correct. This issue requires no further consideration.
[4]       The second issue concerns the admissibility of certain statements allegedly made by Ms Ramakrishnan before her death. These statements had been the subject of an application under s 344A of the Crimes Act 1961 prior to trial. Heath J had ruled the evidence admissible: HC AK CRI 2005-004-1002 30 May 2008. Potter J ran the trial on the basis that Heath J’s decision was correct. Mr Dacre does not criticise her for that. In effect, this appeal is an appeal against Heath J’s decision. The issue is: was he correct to rule that the evidence of what Ms Ramakrishnan had said prior to her death was admissible? Mr Dacre submitted these statements should have been ruled inadmissible on the grounds that:
(a)They were irrelevant; or
(b)Even if relevant, their probative value was outweighed by the risk that the evidence would have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding.

Was evidence as to what Ms Ramakrishnan had said prior to death admissible?
[5] Before we describe the disputed evidence, we need to provide a context.
[6] It was the Crown case that Mr Rajamani, an Indian national of the Hindu faith, had entered into an arranged marriage with Ms Ramakrishnan in India in 2002. Mr Rajamani was at that time…

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 Rajamani

Details

AGLC: R v Rajamani [2009] NZCA 225
Case: [2009] NZCA 225
Decision Date: 2 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laxman Rajamani was convicted of murdering his wife, Chitra Ramakrishnan, by slitting her throat. Rajamani appealed against his conviction, raising two issues for determination. The first issue concerned whether the trial judge, Potter J, had failed to properly sum up on the defence of provocation. The second issue pertained to the admissibility of certain statements allegedly made by Ms Ramakrishnan before her death. The Court of Appeal found that the first issue had no merit, as Potter J's directions to the jury were correct. The Court also rejected the argument that the disputed evidence was inadmissible, finding that it was relevant to show Ms Ramakrishnan's state of mind and was not unfairly prejudicial. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

In summary, Laxman Rajamani appealed against his conviction for murdering his wife, Chitra Ramakrishnan, raising two issues. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's directions on the defence of provocation were correct and dismissed the first issue. The Court also held that the disputed evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, and thus admissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders