14 Jul 2016
KUMAR V R [2016] NZCA 329
- Citation
- (2016) 28 CRNZ 32
- Court
- Court of Appeal
Thabo Meli principle applies without requiring direct proof of an antecedent cohesive plan; the Crown's circumstantial and expert evidence (including pathology and conduct before and after the death) provided a sufficient and inevitable basis for the jury to infer a continuous murderous intent culminating in the burning; the trial directions on one transaction, silence and withdrawal were adequate; the s104 threshold for a 17-year minimum was properly engaged due to planning, callousness and disposal and no discount for youth was warranted.
- Murder
- One transaction principle (thabo meli)
- Concurrence of actus reus and mens rea
- Circumstantial evidence
- Jury directions
- Withdrawal defence