Legal Research
Cases
R v Singh

R v Singh

Case [2025] NSWDC 52 27 March 2025

Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Common Assault

Pervert the Course of Justice

Cognitive Impairment

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SINGH [2025] NSWDC 52
Hearing dates: 19 February 2025
Date of orders: 27 March 2025
Decision date: 27 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paras [78] to [84]

Catchwords:
CRIMES – Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm - Common assault – domestic violence related – Pervert the Course of Justice - Use Offensive Weapon to Commit Indictable Offence
SENTENCE – plea of guilty - form 1 offences – cognitive impairment – causal connection - subject to the ICO at the time of the offending – likely to reoffend

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Cherry V R [2017 NSWCCA 150
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
R v Eckermann [2013] NSWCCA 188
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 156 NSWLR 146

Category: Sentence
Parties: The King
Shyarlm SINGH
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Kerr for the Crown
Mr M Davies for the Offender
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2023/00023982, 2024/00040020
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant nor anything that may tend to identify them.

JUDGMENT

The offender appears for sentence in respect of three substantive offences, two of which are on an Indictment and the third of which is a charge in respect of which the offender was committed for sentence.
Count 1 on the indictment avers that the offender:

On or about 19 January 2023 at Ashmont in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with KL without her consent and knowing that she was not consenting to the sexual intercourse, in circumstances of aggravation, (namely) that at the time of the offence Shyarlm Singh did recklessly inflict actual bodily harm to KL, contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900.

Count 4 on the indictment avers that the offender:

On 20 January 2023 at Ashmont in the State of New South Wales did assault KL thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to her, contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act.

The offender appeared before a Magistrate at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 23 October 2024 and entered a plea of guilty which was adhered to at the sentence hearing to a charge that he:

On 25 January 2023 in Junee in the State of New South Wales, did an act, namely did contact his mother Bernice Harrison asking her to contact the victim KL in an attempt to get KL to go to the police and drop the charges, or to change her statement, intending…

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 [2025] NSWDC 52
Case: [2025] NSWDC 52
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Singh involved the defendant, Singh, who pleaded guilty to a range of offences including aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault in a domestic violence context, and perverting the course of justice by using an offensive weapon to commit an indictable offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Singh, considering his plea of guilty, the nature of the offences, his cognitive impairment, and his potential risk of reoffending.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence for Singh, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, his plea of guilty, the presence of a cognitive impairment, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the mitigating factors of Singh's cognitive impairment and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether Singh was subject to the influence of an Involuntary Custodial Order (ICO) at the time of the offending and how this factor might impact his culpability.

In assessing these issues, the court reviewed the severity and circumstances of the offences, noting the significant harm caused to the victims. The court acknowledged Singh's cognitive impairment and the potential impact on his culpability and risk of reoffending. It considered the causal connection between the cognitive impairment and the offending behaviour, as well as Singh's history of similar offending. The court also examined whether Singh was subject to the ICO at the time of the offending and the implications of this for his sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate, reflecting the need for punishment, deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Singh was sentenced to an aggregate term, with specific details outlined in paragraphs [78] to [84] of the judgment. The court ordered that Singh be subject to the Involuntary Custodial Order during his sentence, considering the need to manage his risk of reoffending and protect the community. The court also made orders for Singh to participate in rehabilitation programs aimed at addressing his cognitive impairment and reducing the likelihood of future offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paras [78] to [84]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

R v Singh [2025] NSWDC 52

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Tepania v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 247
Citation 1 (Para 34)

…Before going to the features of the matter I note the decision of Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, especially the judgment of Johnson J at [112] and [119]. I note that within exhibit 2, the updated report of Dr Sidhu, forensic psychologist, the author opines at paragraph 72 of the report that there is a causal connect…
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Citation 2 (Para 46)

…oing back to at least the decision in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 and in a number of cases since, e.g. R v Eckermann [2013] NSWCCA 188 and Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150, has emphasised the need for general deterrence when sentencing offenders for domestic violence. In this matter however, I note the opinion of Dr Sid…
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Citation 3 (Para 41)

…that the contents of the VIS grounds a finding of any circumstance of aggravation. In that regard I note and have regard to the decision in R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8.…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 4 (Para 48)

…e bullying and the exposure to drug use crime and violence in the broader community, the principles enunciated by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 are enlivened to an extent, thereby reducing the offender’s moral culpability.…
R v Eckermann [2013] NSWCCA 188
Citation 5 (Para 46)

…. The Court of Criminal Appeal, going back to at least the decision in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 and in a number of cases since, e.g. R v Eckermann [2013] NSWCCA 188 and Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150, has emphasised the need for general deterrence when sentencing offenders for domestic violence. In this matter howe…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 6 (Para 64)

…ognitive impairment and the offending. That therefore enlivens the principles enunciated by the plurality of the High Court in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 at [54], namely:…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 7 (Para 67)

…I also note and have regard to the decision of DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa 79 (2010) NSWLR 1 at [177]-[178] per McClellan CJ at CL. Clearly, given the offender’s cognitive impairment, the impact of general and specific deterrence is ameliorated. The offender’s moral culpability is reduced. At [177] of the decision His…
Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195
Citation 8 (Para 32)

…A 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summarised in the following manner: ● Where the state of a person's mental health con…
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
Citation 9 (Para 33)

…at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summarised in the following manner: ● Where t…
R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90
Citation 10 (Para 14)

…255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be summarised in the following manner: ● Where the state of a person's mental health contributes to the commission of the offence in…
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
Citation 11 (Para 46)

…violence. The violence matters are also examples of domestic violence. The Court of Criminal Appeal, going back to at least the decision in R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 and in a number of cases since, e.g. R v Eckermann [2013] NSWCCA 188 and Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150, has emphasised the need for general deterrence…
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Citation 12 (Para 33)

…v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. They can be s…
R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129
Citation 13 (Para 51)

…254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. ● It may also have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulting…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 14 (Para 12)

…tion Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002 otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 Matters reported at (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.…
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
Citation 15 (Para 35)

…A 267 at [40] - [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195 at [14]-[18]; and R v Henry [2007] N…
R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249
Citation 16 (Para 43)

…1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] - [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36]; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32]; Courtney v R [2007] NS…
Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203
Citation 17 (Para 40)

…ntencing: see, eg, R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Tsiarias [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] - [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255; R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33]…
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
Citation 18 (Para 40)

…have developed principles to be applied when sentencing: see, eg, R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Tsiarias [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] - [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249 at [35] - [45]; R v Israil [2002] NS…
Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66
Citation 19 (Para 254)

…ly the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007]…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Citation 20 (Para 254)

…fender's moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R…
R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7
Citation 21 (Para 23)

…be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. ● It may also hav…
R v Henry [1999] NSWCA 111
Citation 22 (Para 254)

…ability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [20…
R v Jiminez [1999] NSWCCA 7
Citation 23

…mental problems the courts have developed principles to be applied when sentencing: see, eg, R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; R v Tsiarias [1996] 1 VR 398 at 400; R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267 at [40] - [48]; Lauritsen v R [2000] WASCA 203; (2000) 114 A Crim R 333 at [43] - [51]; R v Harb [2001] NSWCCA 249…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 42)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v SINGH [2025] NSWDC 52
Hearing dates:	19 February 2025
Date of orders:	27 March 2025
Decision date:	27 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an aggregate sentence – see paras [78] to [84]
Catchwords:	CRIMES – Aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm - Common assault – domestic violence related – Pervert the Course of Justice - Use Offensive Weapon to Commit Indictable Offence SENTENCE – plea of guilty - form 1 offences – cognitive impairment – causal connection - subject to the ICO at the time of the offending – likely to reoffend
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Cherry V R [2017 NSWCCA 150 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 R v Eckermann [2013] NSWCCA 188 R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 The Attorney General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 156 NSWLR 146
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The King Shyarlm SINGH
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Kerr for the Crown Mr M Davies for the Offender Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission of NSW
File Number(s):	2023/00023982, 2024/00040020
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant nor anything that may tend to identify them.