R v Singh - [2010] VSC 299

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0029 of 2010

THE QUEEN

SUKHMANDER SINGH

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 May and 3 June 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 June 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 299

---

MURDER – Sentence – Impaired cognitive functioning – Plea of guilty – Hardship during sentence for foreign offender.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Dempsey	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

On 7 May 2009 Mohinder Kaur was beaten to death by you on the Valley Lake Boulevard at Niddrie. She was an Indian citizen who had come to this country in October 2008. You married Mohinder Kaur in 1987. You have three daughters and one son from the marriage, ranging in age from 22 to 16. Sarabjit Kaur, your daughter, is now 21.

The background to your offending makes for depressing reading. You are 44 years of age, an Indian citizen and the eldest of five children. You grew up in the village of Bilaspur which is in the Moga district of India. You commenced work as a child after being educated to Year 5 level. On another history you have given you did not attend school at all. You eventually came to acquire a small farm, although your efforts to provide for your young family were hopelessly compromised by substance abuse. For reasons that will become apparent, I regard assertions that you may have made to the police, or to your counsel by way of instructions, as unreliable and I will not act upon your word without some independent evidentiary support.

For the most part I have relied upon the evidence of your daughter, Sarabjit Kaur, and her cousin, Rajpreet Harry, to acquire an understanding to the background to your offending. For as long as Sarabjit can remember there was fighting and arguing as between you and your wife. She remembers this hostility as instigated and propagated by you. The children would stay outside the house crying while you set about beating their mother.

Regularly you would falsely accuse your wife of having affairs. Your daughter states, and I accept, that if your mother even spoke to another man there would be physical consequences. For cultural reasons that I am unable to comprehend, these beatings were not reported to the police. Sarabjit states that over the last few years the fighting and beatings became considerably worse. You would kick your wife, hit her and use objects to inflict pain upon her. I quote your daughter:

Sometimes he would use things like a hammer to hit her and other times he would hit and kick her. I have never seen any person like this before. He would abuse her nearly every day and the physical beatings would happen almost once a week.

Your erratic and violent behaviour…

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 [2010] VSC 299
Case: [2010] VSC 299
Decision Date: 29 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Singh, was convicted of murder and appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case before the court involved the sentencing of Mr Singh, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The appellant's legal representatives argued that the sentence should be reconsidered in light of the appellant's impaired cognitive functioning and the hardship he would face in serving the sentence, particularly given his status as a foreign national. The court was required to balance these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. This involved assessing the impact of the appellant's cognitive impairment on his culpability and the relevance of the hardship he would face if required to serve the sentence in an Australian prison. The court had to consider whether these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence and, if so, to what extent. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate weight to give to the appellant's guilty plea and remorse.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court acknowledged the appellant's impaired cognitive functioning and the resulting impact on his culpability. However, it also emphasised the gravity of the offence, noting that the appellant had deliberately and violently taken a life. The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for deterrence and denunciation. Ultimately, the court decided that while the mitigating factors were significant, they did not warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence. The court concluded that a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was upheld. The court did not order any changes to the sentence, maintaining that the original determination appropriately balanced the mitigating factors with the need for an appropriate punishment for the offence committed.

Orders