R v Nagpal HC Rotorua CRI-2010-070-4865 [2011] NZHC 43 (18 February 2011)

Last Updated: 21 February 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

_{CRI-2010-070-4865}

THE QUEEN

v

_{DEEPAK NAGPAL}

Charge: Murder (2) Plea: Guilty

Counsel: R Ronayne for Crown

R Mansfield for Prisoner

Sentenced: 18 February 2011

Life imprisonment; minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J}

SOLICITORS

Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Crown

_{Ron Mansfield (Auckland) for Prisoner}

R V NAGPAL HC ROT CRI-2010-070-4865 [18 February 2011]

Introduction

[1] Mr Nagpal, it is my task to impose a sentence on you for the murders of Mrs Sangha and her little two year old daughter, Anna. In doing so I do not attempt to make up for their deaths. It would be impossible for me to do that. No sentence that I can impose will make up or compensate for the deaths of those two people. Instead what I have to do is respond to your actions in accordance with the law of New Zealand.

[2] You have heard the submissions of the lawyer for the Crown and the submissions of your own lawyer. Both those lawyers before today had filed written submissions and what they have said in Court today is but a summary of lengthy and well reasoned written submissions. I have found those very helpful, particularly since they explain much about your background and because they go extensively into comparisons with other cases of murder in New Zealand. I have read those other cases. I will not be discussing them with you because it would serve no purpose and it is the facts that will determine what I have to do today.

The law

[3] In New Zealand, and certainly in your case, the law requires a sentence of life imprisonment to be imposed for a murder. In your case, with two murders, there are to be two sentences of life imprisonment but they are served concurrently, which means at the same time.

[4] Life imprisonment means just that. It means that unless the Parole Board is satisfied that you can be released into the community at some future time, you will never be released into the community. But at some stage the Parole Board will look at you for consideration of release and so the law also requires me when sentencing you to life imprisonment to set a minimum period that you must serve in prison before the Parole Board is entitled to consider you for release.

[5] In your case, Mr Nagpal, the law requires me to set a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years. That is because of the brutal and callous nature of

the murders, the vulnerability of the victims, and the fact that there were two murders. I know that Mr Mansfield will have told you this and really the rest of the sentencing is about the extent to which the 17 years minimum period of imprisonment must be lifted.

Facts

[6] I will start with going through the background to the murders.

[7] Mr and Mrs Sangha lived with their two year old daughter, Anna, in Tauranga. They had arrived in New Zealand from India in 2006 and they worked as taxi drivers. Their dream was to purchase a Cricket Academy in Te Puna where Mr Sangha would coach cricket.

[8] You arrived in New Zealand from India in 2009 on a student visa. You did not know anyone when you arrived but you soon met Mr and Mrs Sangha. You went to live in their home as a boarder and you became very quickly a member of their family. They trusted you to help look after Anna and after a while you did not pay rent but you contributed financially to the best of your ability to the living expenses of the family.

[9] In 2010 you and the Sanghas discussed purchasing a property and establishing an Indian restaurant. Money was needed for that project. You agreed to help raise money from your family. You flew to India, having already raised some money, and in India you managed to raise further money from your family. However, it was not enough and it was not to the extent that you had planned with Mr and Mrs Sangha. You came back from India and Mr Sangha at the same time went out to India to try to raise the shortfall. That left you in New Zealand in the Sangha family home with Mrs Sangha and Anna.

[10] There is no doubt that this matter of raising funds for the proposed business venture ended in disagreement between you and certainly Mrs Sangha. You had already provided the funds which your family had contributed and this money represented an enormous investment on the part of your family. Mrs Sangha told

you to leave the house. You became enraged and you attacked Mrs Sangha. Words such as “brutal”, “frenzied” and “callous” have been applied to your actions, but it is the stark facts that illuminate what you did. You stabbed Mrs Sangha over 100 times using six different knives. You stabbed her face, her neck and her body. The force you used was sufficient to break three of the knives. You went to the kitchen to retrieve more knives before returning to the laundry to resume your attack.

[11] This was not a case of a single moment of blinding rage resulting in one or two stab wounds. It was an attack over a period of time during which Mrs Sangha fought for her life. The approximately 30 defensive wounds to her arms in particular demonstrate that.

[12] But there was also the presence of Anna, a two year old girl. She must have seen at least part of the murder of her mother. Her mother’s blood was found on her shoes which means that she must have been in the laundry at one point. The forensic evidence shows that she ran away from you but you followed her through the rooms of the house and you picked her up and carried her back to the laundry. There you stabbed her in the face, neck and throat until she was dead. You then placed her body in the washing machine, you loaded your clothes into the machine and you turned it on with Anna’s body still inside.

[13] Following the murders you showered and put on clean clothes. You stole Mrs Sangha’s jewellery, including her wedding necklace and wedding rings from her body. You stole Mr and Mrs Sangha’s bankcards. You drove to Auckland and over the next two days you accessed or attempted to access bank accounts on

23 occasions and took a total of $6,853 in cash. Some of that money you sent back to your family in India. You also booked a one-way flight to Delhi. But before you left you told an associate that the family had owed you money and refused to repay you and that you had killed them. The associate informed the police and you were arrested. I accept what Mr Mansfield says that if escaping had been your prime motivation then you could have done so by leaving New Zealand earlier.

Victim Impact statement

[14] I acknowledge that Mr Sangha is in Court today. I cannot begin to imagine what he is feeling now.

[15] I have read the victim impact statement that he has completed. It is redolent with the enormous sense of loss, the ruined aspirations, the ruined dreams and, of course, the financial burden. He does not want any money from you now; he considers that to be blood money.

[16] His statement is dignified and restrained and when he considers the loss of his daughter, well I think, Mr Nagpal, from what I have read of your response, you have at least an understanding of what the death of Anna means.

Personal circumstances

[17] Now I have to look at you, the young man that you are.

[18] You are 24 years old and you came here recently from India. Your family in India lived in modest circumstances, having a fruit retail business, but they were able to provide for you as the eldest son. You did not have to work as you were growing up. You were very bright academically and your family struggled to give you the opportunities to perform to your potential. They paid for you to go through university and get a commerce degree, and then you came to New Zealand to get further education. Your aspiration, and that of your family, was for you to provide an opportunity eventually for them to join you in New Zealand for a new life.

[19] I accept that in your culture, and indeed in anybody’s culture, there were enormous weights of expectation on your shoulders in coming to New Zealand. You felt secure and happy with the Sangha family. You believed that with them you might through this business opportunity achieve your goals and that of your family. The business proposal was supported by you and through you your extended family provided funds which in the context of their lives were of enormous significance. I have no doubt that the disagreement between you and the Sangha family meant that

you saw that that money had been lost and that the opportunity had been lost and it was that thought, that belief, that caused you to become enraged and commit the murders.

[20] Your actions in the days subsequent to the murders show that you were focused on the financial losses and that you were motivated to recoup what you saw as the losses. Your actions do not show remorse and the reports that I have read say that it was only after you were in prison and began to think about what you had done that the enormity of your actions really came home to you. I accept that you are deeply sorry that you killed Anna. I am not so sure that you are deeply sorry that you killed Mrs Sangha. In any event, I have to respond to the facts of what you have done.

[21] You have no previous convictions. The report provided by Dr Sakdalan assesses you as a relatively low risk of violent re-offending, but that will be a matter for the Parole Board in the future. I accept that your character to this point has been good and you are entitled to credit for that.

Purposes and principles of sentencing.

[22] The law sets out the principles that I have to take into account. I have to denounce your offending; I have to hold you accountable to the community. I certainly have to look to the protection of the public. To the extent that I can, I have to look to your rehabilitation into the community.

[23] In looking at the offending, if there can be any mitigating aspects to it, I do decide that it was not premeditated on your part; that it was offending that occurred in a fit of rage.

[24] So far as the aggravating factors are concerned, they really speak for themselves – the vulnerability of the victims, the brutality and callousness, mother and daughter murdered. There is no need for me to repeat what I have said.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[25] Looking at the cases, my judgment is that I should be starting with a minimum period of imprisonment of 23 years. That is what the Crown has submitted in its written submissions, and having looked at the cases, and at other cases from my own research, I regard that as a reasonable starting point as a matter of law. I emphasise, Mr Nagpal, “a matter of law”. I am not responding in any emotional way to what you have done. I am responding as I believe the law requires me.

[26] I then turn to take into account the mitigating factors relating to you personally. The plea of guilty is significant. It was not at the first available opportunity and, in any event, when it comes to the setting of minimum periods of imprisonment, these factors are of lesser importance than they might be with sentencing in other categories of offending. But you are entitled to credit for that, and in the overall reduction that I am going to give you I fix that at about 10%.

[27] Looking at the other factors, in particular your age, the fact that you had no commercial motivation for the killings, that it was a rage as a result of the failure of your expectations, the fact that without family or community support serving a sentence of imprisonment in New Zealand will be more difficult for you than for others, and your character, I fix the minimum term of imprisonment which you will serve as being 20 years.

[28] Accordingly, on each of the counts of murder I sentence you to life imprisonment. You will serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years. In

_{accordance with Mr Sangha’s wishes, I make no order for reparation. Stand down.}

Brewer J