R v Sami - [2017] NZHC 3159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2015-009-420 [2017] NZHC 3159

REGINA

v

SHAYAL UPASHNA SAMI

Hearing: 15 December 2017

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh for the Crown
J H M Eaton QC and H Coutts for the Defendant

Date:

15 December 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Ms Sami you are here for sentence today because you have been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Aaliyah Chand and you have been convicted of that offence.

[2] This offence carries a sentence of life imprisonment, but as you have heard today, the sentence that is imposed in any particular case depends very much on its facts. That is why I have to go through the facts carefully to consider what sentence is appropriate in this case.

Background

[3] The victim in this case, Aaliyah Chand had just turned one when the events that led to you being charged with her death occurred. Her parents, Dev Chand and

R v Sami [2017] NZHC 3159 [15 December 2017]

Anjani Lata, had decided to move from Wellington to Christchurch where Mr Chand had gained employment as a bus driver. Because of the family circumstances, there was to be a transition period of three to four months where Ms Lata remained in Wellington with her two older children, while Mr Chand moved to Christchurch with their daughter.

[4] You were 18 at the time and had recently married one of Mr Chand’s work colleagues, Nilesh Ram. The two of you had moved to Christchurch where you were living alone in a one bedroom flat. As you were pregnant with your first child and not working, it was suggested that you look after Aaliyah at your flat while Mr Chand worked, until Aalyiah’s mother and step-siblings moved down in early
2014.

[5] Both Mr Chand and Ms Lata took the time to meet you. They satisfied themselves that you were a suitable carer for their child and, certainly in the period from November to Christmas 2014, the arrangement seemed to work well. Over the Christmas period, Aaliyah’s family was able to get together and they celebrated Aaliyah’s first birthday together on 29 December 2014. During this period, Aaliyah was taken to a doctor in Wellington because of a dry skin irritation on her head. It is clear from that check-up on 2 January 2015 that Aaliyah was otherwise in good health and uninjured at this time.

[6] Mr Chand and Aaliyah returned to Christchurch on 3 January 2015 and Aaliyah returned to your care on 4 January. It was on Tuesday, 6 January 2015, that Aaliyah sustained the injuries which led to her death.

[7] The injuries that Aaliyah sustained included two fractures to the skull, two unrelated subdural haematomas (which indicated more than one impact to the head), extensive retinal haemorrhaging to both eyes and extensive bruising to the face, some of which was consistent with pressure from fingers, as if…

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 Sami

Details

AGLC: R v Sami [2017] NZHC 3159
Case: [2017] NZHC 3159
Decision Date: 15 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shayal Upashna Sami was found guilty of manslaughter of Aaliyah Chand and was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand. The central issue was determining the appropriate sentence for manslaughter of a defenceless child, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court deliberated on the starting point for the sentence, considering the seriousness of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the breach of trust by the defendant. The court also assessed mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, lack of criminal history, and the challenging circumstances she faced. The court ultimately determined that a starting point of seven years' imprisonment was appropriate, which was then reduced to five years, taking into account mitigating factors. The court also issued a three strikes warning, advising the defendant of the severe consequences of any future serious violent convictions.

Orders