R v Singh - [2001] NSWCCA 424

CITATION: R v Singh [2001] NSWCCA 424

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60331/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12/10/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 October 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Gurinder Singh

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 19; Howie J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0200

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Woods DCJ

COUNSEL : G.E. Smith - Crown
G. Wendler - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Mark Klees & Associates - Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Parity - no parity with non-co-offenders

LEGISLATION CITED: Justice Act 1902 - s 51A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - s 29

CASES CITED:
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383

DECISION: The application for leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60331/01

GROVE J

HOWIE J

R V GURINDER SINGH

Judgment

The applicant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to four counts of supplying a prohibited drug and was committed for sentence to the District Court under the provisions of s 51A of the Justices Act. He adhered to his pleas before Judge Woods and also requested that his Honour take into account two matters on a Form 1 under the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The four offences before the District Court comprised one count alleging that between 18 January and 28 January 2000 he supplied not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and three counts each alleging that on 28 January he supplied a prohibited drug, each count relating to a different drug, being heroin (count 2), methylamphetamine (count 3) and cocaine (count 4). The two matters on the Form 1 consisted of a charge of supplying heroin on 20 January 2000 and a count of possession of cannabis on 28 January.

2 The maximum penalty prescribed for an offence of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, not being cannabis, is 20 years imprisonment with a fine of $320,000. The maximum penalty for each of the offences of supply is 15 years imprisonment with a fine of $220,000.

3 Judge Woods sentenced the applicant on the first count to imprisonment for 5 years to date from 28 January 2000 and specified a non-parole period of 3 years to expire on 27 January 2003. In respect of the second count his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 4 years to date from 28 January 2001 and fixed a non-parole period of 2½ years to expire on 27 July 2003. The sentences of a fixed term of 2 years imprisonment for each of the other two offences of supply were totally subsumed in the sentence imposed for the first two counts. The applicant, therefore, is eligible to be considered for release to parole on 27 July 2003. This is an effective non-parole period of 3½ years as against a head sentence of 5 years.

4 There are two grounds of appeal contained in the…

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 Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Singh [2001] NSWCCA 424
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 424
Decision Date: 12 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Singh involved an appeal by the respondent, Singh, against a conviction for armed robbery. The trial judge had sentenced Singh to imprisonment, but Singh contended that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to that given to co-offenders who had received lesser sentences. Singh argued that the trial judge had not given adequate consideration to the principle of parity, which requires that sentences for co-offenders be commensurate. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the trial judge had erred in not applying the principle of parity in sentencing Singh.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had failed to properly consider the principle of parity in sentencing Singh. This involved examining whether the trial judge had given appropriate weight to the principle that sentences for co-offenders should be comparable, and whether the disparity in sentences between Singh and his co-offenders was justified. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge's failure to apply the principle of parity constituted a significant error that warranted interference with the sentence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not adequately considering the principle of parity in sentencing Singh. The court held that the trial judge had failed to properly balance the circumstances of Singh's involvement in the crime against those of his co-offenders, leading to a sentence that was disproportionate. The court emphasised that while the principle of parity does not require identical sentences for all co-offenders, it does demand that the trial judge give proper consideration to the relative culpability of each offender and ensure that the sentences reflect those differences. The court concluded that the trial judge's failure to do so constituted a significant error, warranting the court's intervention to ensure that the principle of parity was properly applied.

The High Court allowed Singh's appeal, quashed the sentence, and remitted the matter to the trial judge for re-sentencing. The court directed the trial judge to reconsider Singh's sentence, taking into account the principle of parity and ensuring that any new sentence was commensurate with those given to Singh's co-offenders. The court did not specify a particular sentence but left it to the trial judge to determine an appropriate term of imprisonment that adhered to the principle of parity.

Orders