R v Singh - [2015] VSC 738

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 0050 of 2015

THE QUEEN
v
PARMINDER SINGH	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 November 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 738

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Domestic Violence – Early guilty plea – Whether remorse – Mental state – Whether principles in Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 applicable - Prospects of deportation – Baseline sentencing provisions in the Sentencing Act 1991 not applicable – DPP v Walters [2015] VSCA 303.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose QC	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr N Hutton	R C Chase

HIS HONOUR:

Parminder Singh, on 9 October 2015 you pleaded guilty to the murder of your wife, Nikita Chawla. You murdered her in the early hours of 9 January 2015 at your home in West Brunswick. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The offence of murder is a baseline sentencing offence and I will return to that topic later in these reasons for sentence.

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this very serious crime.

Circumstances of Offence

You and your wife met in February 2011 and for various reasons your relationship was kept secret from her family. On 8 December 2011, you and she married - that was also kept secret. In June 2012, under the name ‘Robin’ you met your wife’s family, that meeting was apparently not a success. You seemingly concluded your wife’s family disapproved of you. However, the marriage continued and included a trip to India so that your wife could meet your family.

In April 2013, the lease was signed for the property in Waxman Parade, West Brunswick and the two of you lived there from then until the terrible events of 9 January 2015.

In 2010 you had obtained a bridging visa for residence in Australia. In March 2014 you obtained permanent residence in Australia as a consequence of your marriage to the deceased.

There were some difficulties in the relationship with your wife and it appeared that you were in need of psychological assistance in the latter part of 2014. I will return this in more detail shortly.

In November 2014, with your wife’s encouragement, you went to India to see your family. You were away until early January 2015 and while you were away you gained the impression correctly that your relationship with your wife was deteriorating further. During that time your wife had commenced work at a health insurance company and formed a relationship with a work colleague. She had also decided to end her marriage to you.

In early January, while you were in India, the flavour of communication between you and the deceased was angry, at least on your part, as you detected that the relationship was failing. During that time the deceased had…

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 [2015] VSC 738
Case: [2015] VSC 738
Decision Date: 17 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the accused, Mr Singh, was convicted of murder following a domestic dispute. The accused was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the accused, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the accused's early guilty plea, and the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the presence of domestic violence.

The court examined whether the principles set out in the case of Verdins applied, particularly in relation to the accused's remorse and mental state. The court also considered the prospect of the accused's deportation to India and whether the baseline sentencing provisions in the Sentencing Act 1991 were applicable. The court had to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the principles in Verdins were applicable in this case. The court found that the accused did not demonstrate sufficient remorse and that the offence was of a serious nature. The court also noted the prospect of deportation as a factor that could potentially mitigate the sentence. Ultimately, the court decided that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence, the lack of remorse shown by the accused, and the potential for deportation. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account all relevant factors.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the accused, along with any other relevant orders pertaining to the case. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that justice was served in a fair and balanced manner.

Orders