R v Reddy - [2016] NZHC 1367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-011748 [2016] NZHC 1367

THE QUEEN

v

KAMAL GYANENDRA REDDY

Hearing: 22 June 2016

Counsel:

NE Walker and LJ Clancy for Crown
JG Krebs and GC Gotlieb for Defendant

Judgment:

22 June 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau.
JG Krebs, Napier.
GC Gotlieb, Auckland.

R v REDDY [2016] NZHC 1367 [22 June 2016]

Introduction

[1] Kamal Reddy, you appear for sentence today after having been found guilty by a jury of the murders of Pakeeza Yusuf and Juwairiyah Kalim. The penalty for murder in New Zealand is life imprisonment, so as a result of your convictions on the murder charges you will be sentenced today to life imprisonment.1 The issue for me to determine in this sentencing process is the length of the period to be fixed before you may apply for parole; what is referred to as the minimum term of imprisonment.2 Whatever that minimum term, at its expiry you will not be automatically released from prison. The expiry of the period will mean no more than that you will then be eligible for parole. There is no guarantee that you will be granted parole either on the first application or at a later time. The Parole Board will consider at the relevant time whether you remain a risk to the community.

[2] So before I turn to the question of the minimum term it is necessary to set out the background to your offending. I am now going to set out the facts as I find them to be. Much of what I say in terms of the facts will be drawn from the confessional statement you made to the undercover police officer at the second meeting you had with him, that undercover officer colloquially being called Mr Big. You made that confession at the end of a long process, and I am satisfied to the criminal standard that what you said when you finally confessed to the murders was true. What you said then, not realising that you were being recorded, was what actually happened and I do not accept, Mr Reddy, the evidence you gave in the witness box where you said that confession was wrong and it was not truthful. Indeed, what you said in evidence was remarkable for its obvious invention, its inconsistencies and at times its complete absurdity.

[3] So these are the facts that I find to have been proven.

Relevant facts

[4] At the end of 2006 you were 33 years old. Of the two victims, Mubarak

Pakeeza Yusuf (known as Pakeeza) was then 24 years old, and her daughter

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 103 and 104.

Juwairiyah Kalim (I will refer to her as Juwairiyah) was three years old. You had been in an on-again, off-again relationship with Pakeeza for some months. Pakeeza’s mother Rojina Banu gave evidence about living with Pakeeza for a while and during that time you…

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 Reddy

Details

AGLC: R v Reddy [2016] NZHC 1367
Case: [2016] NZHC 1367
Decision Date: 22 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Kamal Gyanendra Reddy was sentenced following his conviction for the murders of Pakeeza Yusuf and her three-year-old daughter, Juwairiyah Kalim. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate length of Reddy's minimum term of imprisonment before he becomes eligible for parole. Reddy had confessed to the murders but later recanted his confession in court, claiming innocence and the involvement of another individual. The court found Reddy's confession to be truthful and disregarded his trial testimony.

The court outlined several aggravating factors, including the double murder, the callousness of the crimes, and the vulnerability of the child victim. Reddy's actions post-murder, such as disposing of the bodies and using the victim's financial resources, further demonstrated his callousness. The court found no mitigating factors in Reddy's personal history or his attitude towards the crimes. Consequently, the court determined an appropriate starting point of 21 years for Reddy's minimum term of imprisonment, imposing a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years before he becomes eligible for parole.

The court's reasoning was based on the extreme seriousness of the crimes, the level of premeditation, and the lack of remorse shown by Reddy. The final orders of the court were the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years, to be served concurrently for both murder charges. Reddy will remain in prison for at least 21 years, after which the Parole Board will determine his eligibility for release.

Orders