R v Harpreet Bhullar - [2012] NSWSC 93

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Harpreet Bhullar [2012] NSWSC 93
Hearing dates: 20 February 2012
Decision date: 21 February 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. Sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 25 days.
2. That sentence will be taken to have commenced on 28 January 2010 and to have expired today.
3. The offender is to be released immediately.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - accessory after the fact to murder - offender in fear of her safety from violent co-offender - period in custody served on remand - sentenced to term of imprisonment equating to time served
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104.
R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345 (2002) 132 A Crim R 408
R v Fennell [2011] NSWSC 489
R v Jin [2011] NSWSC 169
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Harpreet Kaur Bhullar (Offender)
Representation: P Cattini (Crown)
D Yehia SC (Offender)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/25086
Publication restriction: Yes

remarks on sentence

HIS HONOUR: On 20 February 2012 the offender Harpreet Kaur Bhullar pleaded guilty before me to one count of accessory after the fact to the murder of Ranjodh Singh, contrary to s 349 of the Crimes Act 1900. The Crown accepted that plea in full discharge of all counts on the indictment, which included a charge that on 29 December 2009 the offender did murder the deceased. Upon the basis of the agreed facts and other evidence not the subject of contest, including an induced statement from the offender, the following facts are accepted for sentencing purposes.

The deceased was residing in one-bedroom boarding house accommodation with Harpreet Singh in Wagga Wagga. Both the deceased and Harpreet Singh used to live and work in Griffith but Harpreet Singh left Griffith around October or November 2009 due to issues involving considerable amounts of money that Harpreet Singh owed to workers whom he had contracted to work as farm hands on local farms in the Griffith area. The deceased moved to Wagga Wagga in early December that year because he could not find work in Griffith.

Harpreet Singh also owed money to the deceased for work that the deceased had performed for him. Harpreet Singh would deal with farmers who required workers to harvest their crops. Harpreet Singh would then engage others to perform this work. One farmer named Russell Vardanega had also engaged Harpreet Singh who had in turn engaged the deceased, among others, to work on his farm. Mr Vardanega had refused to pay Harpreet Singh due to some damage occasioned to his property and so the deceased was also not paid.

Gurpreet Singh and the offender were living in a de facto relationship and residing at premises in Kookora Street, Griffith. Harpreet Singh knew Gurpreet Singh and the offender, as he was responsible for finding them work…

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 Harpreet Bhullar

Details

AGLC: R v Harpreet Bhullar [2012] NSWSC 93
Case: [2012] NSWSC 93
Decision Date: 21 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harpreet Bhullar involved the defendant, Harpreet Bhullar, who was charged as an accessory after the fact to murder. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Bhullar, who was alleged to have assisted the principal offender following a murder. Bhullar argued that she had acted out of fear for her safety due to threats from the principal offender and other violent associates. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of Bhullar's culpability as an accessory and the appropriate sentence considering the mitigating factors presented. The court had to weigh Bhullar's fear of her co-offender and the period she had already served in custody on remand against the gravity of the crime she assisted in. The court needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and just, reflecting both the nature of the offence and the circumstances under which Bhullar acted.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged Bhullar's fear of her co-offender as a significant mitigating factor. The court recognised that while Bhullar's actions constituted aiding the principal offender, her fear for her safety played a substantial role in her conduct. Given that Bhullar had already served time on remand, the court concluded that her sentence should equate to the time she had already served. This approach was deemed fair and appropriate, balancing the need for punishment with the mitigating circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that Harpreet Bhullar's sentence was to be the period of imprisonment she had already served on remand. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the consideration of all mitigating factors in such cases.

Orders