R v Skantha - [2020] NZHC 442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-012-000310

[2020] NZHC 442

THE QUEEN

v

VENOD SKANTHA

Hearing: 6 March 2020

Counsel:

R P Bates and R D Smith for the Crown

J H M Eaton QC and J Oliver-Hood for the Defendant

Judgment:

9 March 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] I am going to begin my remarks by acknowledging the presence of the family and friends of Amber-Rose Rush. I particularly acknowledge those who provided victim impact statements. I appreciate the courage of Jayden Rush in reading his. I can understand fully why others felt they were unable to read theirs but all can be assured that I have read those statements carefully and I would expect, in the normal way, that Mr Eaton would have made sure that Dr Skantha was aware of what was in those reports. Those reports were provided to make sure the Court, and that is me as the sentencing Judge, and also Dr Skantha are fully aware of the terrible consequences the murder of Amber-Rose has had on all those who were close to her. I appreciate that, preparing those statements originally and revisiting them for this sentencing, will have been painful for you. You have, however, done all you can to ensure the Court is fully informed as to the effects of Dr Skantha’s offending. That is a matter which,

R v SKANTHA [2020] NZHC 442 [9 March 2020]

along with a number of other matters, the Court must take into account in sentencing Dr Skantha.

[2] I hope the fact you have done those things has brought you some comfort and that it brings you some comfort, and helps you move on from the intense grief and stress you have suffered through to this point, and which I appreciate will continue to be part of your lives for a long time, perhaps always.

[3] You will however appreciate that Dr Skantha is charged with his offending because of the ways it was alleged he committed a serious crime. The prosecutions were brought by the State, on behalf of the community, in the name of the Crown. The sentences I must impose have to be fixed in accordance with legislation and the precedents available from other cases. The appropriate sentence cannot be determined through trying to find some way of compensating you for your loss and I cannot try and do that. All I can say is that, in arriving at an appropriate sentence in the way I am required to, those of you who made victim impact statements have made me aware of how the murder of Amber-Rose has affected each of you.

[4] Dr Skantha, in January 2018, you were 30 years old. You had qualified with a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Auckland in 2015. In 2017, you took up a position as a junior doctor at the Dunedin Public Hospital. During…

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 Skantha

Details

AGLC: R v Skantha [2020] NZHC 442
Case: [2020] NZHC 442
Decision Date: 9 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Skantha before the High Court of New Zealand involved the sentencing of Venod Skantha, a doctor convicted of murdering 16-year-old Amber-Rose Rush. Skantha was found guilty of murder and four charges of threatening to kill. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Skantha, taking into account the nature of the crime, the impact on the victim's family, and the aggravating factors of the offence.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the murder was committed to avoid the detection of an offence, if it involved unlawful entry into the victim’s home, whether it involved a high level of brutality or callousness, and if it involved calculated or lengthy planning. The court also had to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for the murder and the sentences for the charges of threatening to kill.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence, including the murder being committed to silence Amber-Rose from making complaints about Skantha's inappropriate behaviour, the unlawful entry into her home, and the high level of callousness involved in the manner of the killing. The court rejected the argument that the murder involved calculated or lengthy planning to the degree which would require a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.

After considering the submissions from both the Crown and defence counsel, the court decided that the minimum period of imprisonment should be 19 years. Skantha was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, with a minimum term of 19 years before eligibility for parole. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for one year on each of the charges of threatening to kill, with those sentences running concurrently with the sentence for murder.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years for the murder of Amber-Rose Rush, and concurrent one-year sentences for the charges of threatening to kill. The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence in determining the appropriate sentence for Skantha.

Orders