R v Lechmana [2010] NSWSC 849

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Lechmana [2010] NSWSC 849 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 30th November ; 1,2,3,4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 December 2009; 12th February, 9th April and 11th June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 9 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF : Latham J

DECISION : Convicted of the murder of Pharzana Nathagopal. Sentenced to a non parole period of 17 years and 3 months to date from 25 February 2008, expiring 24 May 2025, with a balance of term of 5 years and 9 months, expiring 24 February 2031. Eligible for release on 25 May 2025

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - relevant factors - nature and circumstances of offender - depressive illness - nature and circumstances of offence - whether intention to kill

LEGISLATION CITED : Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CATEGORY : Sentence

PARTIES : Regina - Crown Nanthagopal Lechmana - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2008/19511

COUNSEL : M Cunneen SC - Regina G. Scragg - Offender

SOLICITORS : S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosectutions Jeffreys & Associates - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

9 JULY 2010

2008/19511 R v NANTHAGOPAL LECHMANA

SENTENCE 1 HER HONOUR : The offender was found guilty after trial of the murder of his wife, Pharzana, on 25 February 2008. It was never in dispute that he had caused her death by strangulation. The only partial defence at trial was that of substantial impairment, which the jury rejected, in the sense that the offender's depression was not considered so substantial that it warranted the reduction of the verdict from murder to manslaughter. 2 The verdict was, in my opinion, completely understandable, given the nature of the relationship between the offender and his wife, the deterioration of that relationship in the months leading up to her death, including a previous assault upon her by the offender, the couple's efforts towards salvaging the marriage and the victim's final decision to separate from the offender, which the offender could not accept. The offender's violence towards his wife on the night she died was not the act of a man so deep in the grip of a depression that he was unable to control himself. It was the act of a man who could see that his wife no longer loved him, that she was beyond his authority as her husband, that she had determined to separate from him, taking their child with her, and there was nothing he could do to prevent it. 3 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender assaulted his wife on the night of 25 February 2008 with the intention of killing her. The reasons for that finding are set out below. I am not persuaded that the offence was premeditated. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence suggest that the offender's frustration and anger, arising out of the prospect of losing his wife and child and his sense of alienation from his wife's family and community, found spontaneous expression in the violence meted out to his wife that culminated in her death.