Director of Public Prosecutions v Singh

[2024] VCC 1641

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 24-00949

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

HARPREET SINGH

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 October 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 1641

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:             Charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice – attempting to contract the complainant in a pending trial via another person – early plea of guilty – unsophisticated offending – low end example of offending – no delay – deportation – good prospects of rehabilitation – totality.

Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; DPP v Monteroso [2022] VCC 2368, DPP v Cruikshank & Tassopoulos [2021] VCC 2121; DPP v Keyte [2024] VCC 901 and DPP v Harvey [2024] VCC 1162.

Sentence:Four months imprisonment, served concurrently with the sentence currently serving.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P. Pickering (Plea) Ms T. Ransome (Sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr O. Cain	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR: 

1Harpreet Singh, you pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  The circumstances of your offending are set out in the document entitled Summary of Prosecution Opening, which is Exhibit A.

2On 29 April 2017 you struck Chang Guof Luak. 

3On 29 June 2019 you were charged.

4On 3 July 2023 a jury was empanelled to try you. The next day, Mr Luak told the informant something which led to the discharge of the jury without giving a verdict.

5You were re-tried and found guilty of two charges on 12 March 2024 and you were sentenced by me on 29 August 2024.

6During 2017 and 2018, you were a client of Ms Solanthi’s Hair Braiding business.  In late December 2019, you contacted her asking for her assistance in contacting a Sudanese male whom you called Chanky Wichar Kuach.  You contacted her a few times to see if she had contacted him. She had not.

7On 2 June 2022, you contacted her again on the same matter and the next day, you went to her home.  You told her that you had had a fight with Mr Luak which resulted in a court case.  The case was delayed and this prevented you visiting a sick relative overseas.  You wanted to speak to Mr Luak to resolve the case and visit your relative and you would give Mr Luak anything, including money, if he were to request a discontinuation of the case.  You asked her to pass on that message to Mr Luak.  In her ignorance, Ms Solanthi agreed but she declined to accept your offer of a gift for doing so.

8By early June 2022, Ms Solanthi found Mr Luak and on 9 June, she rang him.  After speaking about mutual friends, life in Kenya, all of which was conducted in Swahili, she told him that you, her ex-client, wanted to speak to him about settling the case and was open to give him anything he wanted so you could visit your sick family member.  Mr Luak told Solanthi he would not talk to you because you had struck him over the head with something wooden and had left him to die.  Ms Solanthi told you Luak did not want to speak to you, and you were not to contact her again over this matter.

9On 4 February 2023, you were arrested.  You gave a 'no comment' record of interview and were released pending further enquiries.

10On 29 August 2024, I sentenced you on the two charges on which you were tried.  I have re-read my sentencing remarks.  Largely, they contain the material you rely upon in this proceeding.

11Since then, your personal circumstances have altered to the extent you are now in custody, your wife has given birth to a second child, a daughter in September, and your grandfather died.

12The maximum penalty for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is 25 years' imprisonment.  The size of the maximum penalty reflects the importance of protecting the course of justice.  What is the course of justice covers a wide variety of circumstances, it assumes importance where the offence involves an attempt to pervert the course of a proceeding in a court.

13Your case engages the purposes of sentencing.  My sentence should deter you and like-minded others from committing this offence.  Deterring you also embraces protecting the community from you.  It should also be seen as denouncing your offending.  Your actions sought to undermine the integrity of the justice system by seeking to end the prosecution against you.  However, general deterrence and denunciation must be tempered by remembering your psychological deficits, especially in regard to your cognitive abilities.

14You were charged on 18 October 2023.  You were committed for a plea on 12 June 2024.  You pleaded guilty on 3 September 2024.  I consider it was a plea entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  There were two committal mention hearings.  The first was adjourned because you changed your lawyers.

15A guilty plea benefits the criminal justice system by avoiding a trial, it relieves the need for witnesses to give evidence, you accept responsibility for your offending by the plea and it is evidence of your remorse, which I accept you are.

16Whether your underlying motive was to visit your sick relative, the effect of your actions, if successful, may have resulted in a discontinuance of the case against you.

17You did not contact Mr Luak directly, you used an agent in the form of Ms Solanthi.  After Mr Luak refused, you did not contact him directly or indirectly through another person.  You never conveyed any threat to Mr Luak through Ms Solanthi.  It is fair to say your efforts were unsophisticated.  I agree this offence is at the low end of this type of offence.

18Delay was an issue in the offending which I sentenced you in August.  There was no delay with this charge.  The offence was revealed during the aborted trial in 2023.  The proceeding has moved quickly since then.

19I discussed deportation in my earlier sentence remarks.  A sentence of imprisonment for this charge may render your deportation more likely with the resultant psychological effect on you of that realisation.

20In my earlier sentencing remarks, I considered the reports of Mr Healey, Mr Jackson, Dr Bruer and Ms Mattia.  In those remarks I dealt with the application of limbs or principles stated in R v Verdins[1]. The same considerations apply here.  There is no reason for me to change my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation as being good.

[1][2007] VSCA 102.

21Your counsel referred me to the sentences imposed by three judges of this court for this offence and their remarks.[2]  One involved the imposition of a large fine after taking into account 264 days of detention in custody.  In another, the sentencing judge reviewed a number of sentences and the sentences arising from sentencing appeals.  In a further case where community correction orders were imposed, each of the co-offenders was a youthful offender, which you are not.  The sentences in those cases ranged from a community correction order to two years' imprisonment.

[2]DPP v Monteroso [2022] VCC 2368, DPP v Cruikshank & Tassopoulos [2021] VCC 2121; DPP v Keyte [2024] VCC 901 and DPP v Harvey [2024] VCC 1162.

22This offence arose in the context of the pending charges for which you were tried. It raises the totality principle and the usual sentencing practice of a degree of cumulation, at least to some extent, for different offending.

23On the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, I sentence you to four months' imprisonment.  This sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence you are currently undergoing.

24If you had not pleaded guilty to the charge but had been found guilty after a trial, I would have sentenced you to six months' imprisonment and ordered two months of the sentence to be served cumulatively upon the sentence you are undergoing.

‑ ‑ ‑