R v Ram - [2015] NZHC 2813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-11392 [2015] NZHC 2813

THE QUEEN

v

JIWAN RAM

Hearing: 12 November 2015

Appearances:

K A Lummis and D J Dufty for Crown
H B Leabourn for Defendant

Sentence:

12 November 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
H B Leabourn, Auckland

R v RAM [2015] NZHC 2813 [12 November 2015]

[1] Mr Ram you have been found guilty of one charge of the murder of

Ms Bimla Wati. I convict you for that murder. You appear now for sentencing.

[2] Murder ordinarily carries a penalty of life imprisonment, which I will impose on you.1 The key remaining issue is the minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve.

[3] My sentence will be in six key parts:

(a) First, I must re-tell the facts of the murder (and I regret any additional harm this causes to Bimla’s family and friends but it is something I am obliged to do);

(b) Second, I will describe your personal circumstances;

(c) Third, I will briefly refer to the victim impact statements;

(d)Fourth, I will describe the legal frame, principles and purposes of sentencing;

(e) Fifth, I will set out the reasons for the sentence I will impose on you;

and

(f) Sixth, I will deliver my sentence.

Relevant facts

[4] On the evening of 3 November 2014 you and Bimla were at home together with two boarders, Hardeep Singh and Paramvir Singh. Bimla’s niece, Rangeeta Gounder and her daughter, who also lived in the home had gone out for dinner.

[5] Bimla’s daughter had recently given birth to a second grandchild and Bimla wanted to see her that weekend in New Plymouth. But finances were tight and you

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102. This section applies unless it would be manifestly unjust to impose life imprisonment. There is no dispute that the very high standard under s 102 would not be met in the current case.

wanted to postpone the visit until you could afford it. You argued about this and it appears that about 8.00 pm you retreated to your bedroom to go to sleep.

[6] Still upset, Bimla followed you into the bedroom with a knife. I am unable to say what exactly was said, but I find that a struggle then ensued in which you attempted to get the knife from her and during this struggle you sustained a cut to your right bicep.

[7] You both then moved out into the living room. By this stage Bimla had placed the knife on a coffee or dining room table and sat down on the sofa. Bimla called Rangeeta at about 9.00 pm to see when she would be home and Rangeeta said she would be home soon. The arguing continued. I am prepared to proceed on the basis that Bimla made a disparaging comment about your mother and you became enraged. You then picked up the knife and stabbed Bimla at least…

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 Ram

Details

AGLC: R v Ram [2015] NZHC 2813
Case: [2015] NZHC 2813
Decision Date: 12 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jiwan Ram, was convicted of the murder of Ms Bimla Wati. The court heard arguments from the Crown, represented by K A Lummis and D J Dufty, and the defendant, represented by H B Leabourn. The key issue for the court was to determine the minimum period of imprisonment that Ram must serve before being eligible for parole. The court also had to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, accountability, deterrence, and protection of the public.

The court found that the murder was aggravated by the intensity and location of the stabbings, Bimla's vulnerability, and the breach of trust. The court did not consider the harm caused to the family as an aggravating factor for the purposes of the sentencing assessment. The court acknowledged some mitigating factors, including the absence of premeditation, some degree of provocation, and the short duration of the acts of murder and harm. However, the court did not accept that Ram had expressed genuine remorse for his actions.

The court found that the level of brutality and callousness in this case did not attract a minimum sentence of 17 years, as provided for in Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Instead, the court considered the features of the offending to be comparable to other domestic cases involving multiple stabbings, which attracted minimum sentences in the range of 10 to 12.5 years. The court imposed a minimum period of 11 years and 5 months of imprisonment before Ram would be eligible for parole.

The court also issued a three-strike warning to Ram, advising that any future serious violence offence, except murder, would result in a final warning. If Ram committed another serious violence offence and received a sentence of imprisonment other than life imprisonment for manslaughter or preventive detention, he would serve the sentence without parole. If Ram was convicted of murder, he would be sentenced to life imprisonment, which he would have to serve without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on Jiwan Ram for the murder of Bimla Wati, with a minimum period of 11 years and 5 months before he would be eligible for parole. The court also issued a three-strike warning to Ram, advising him of the consequences of any future serious violence offences.

Orders