IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2021-004-6982
[2023] NZHC 1055
THE KING
v
SHAMAL SHARMA
Hearing:
4 May 2023
Appearances:
M Nathan and R Benic for the Crown J Hudson for the Defendant
Sentence:
4 May 2023
SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J
Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland J Hudson, Auckland
R v SHARMA [2023] NZHC 1055 [4 May 2023]
Background
[1]Mr Sharma, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.
[2] Mr Sharma, you appear for sentence today, having entered guilty pleas to the murder and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection of Lena Harrap, and to dangerous driving involving a separate victim, Tejal Acharya.
[3] The charge of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.1 The charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment,2 and the charge of dangerous driving carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment and mandatory disqualification from driving for a period of six months.3
Relevant facts
Dangerous driving
[4] On the morning of 21 September 2021, you were driving your motor vehicle in Henderson. The victim, a 26 year old female unknown to you, was jogging along the road. You saw her. You slowed down and stared at her. You then turned into a side road as the victim was crossing the road. You then turned back onto the main road, so that you were travelling in the same direction as the victim. A short time later, you pulled over to the side of the road and spoke to her. You asked her if she knew where another road was. She replied “no” and continued on. You endeavoured to engage her in conversation again. The victim by this stage was feeling uneasy. She cut you off and continued to walk along the footpath.
[5] You drove off and parked in a nearby carpark, in an area where the victim could not see you. You nevertheless continued to observe her and you drove down another road to an intersection where the victim was waiting to cross. You continued to follow her making a series of manoeuvres in your vehicle in order to do so. Ultimately, you accelerated your vehicle as you approached the victim. You swerved abruptly over
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172.
2 Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B.
3 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 35(1)(b) and 35(2).
the kerb and onto the footpath. She had to run to her right, onto grass beside the footpath, to avoid being hit by your car. You swerved back onto the road and drove away.
[6] You had been following the victim for approximately 20 minutes before you attempted to run her over.
The murder/the sexual violation
[7] I am now going to discuss briefly the murder and the sexual violation. Members of Ms Harrap’s family may want to leave the Court briefly. I will invite you back in when I…
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 Sharma
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Sharma [2023] NZHC 1055
Case
[2023] NZHC 1055
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of R v Sharma, where the defendant, Shamal Sharma, was convicted of the murder and sexual violation of Lena Harrap, and dangerous driving involving Tejal Acharya. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Sharma, considering the nature of the crimes and the relevant legal principles. Sharma's legal team argued for a lesser sentence due to his mental health issues, while the Crown sought the maximum penalties available. The judge found that a sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate for the murder, with a minimum period of 19 years and six months, along with concurrent sentences for the other charges. The court considered various factors, including the aggravating and mitigating aspects of the case, the defendant's mental health, and his guilty pleas.
The High Court of New Zealand sentenced Shamal Sharma to life imprisonment for the murder of Lena Harrap, with a minimum period of 19 years and six months. Sharma was also sentenced to 11 years and three months' imprisonment for the sexual violation of Harrap and two months' imprisonment for dangerous driving, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The court also imposed a six-month disqualification from driving.