R v Singh (No 8) - [2023] NSWSC 51

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Singh (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 51
Hearing dates: 2 September 2022
Date of orders: 10 February 2023
Decision date: 10 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) In relation to his acquittal for murder, I grant Kulwinder Singh a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) certifying:
(i) If the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all of the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and
(ii) That any act or omission of Mr Singh that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The certificate covers the costs of both the 2019 trial and the 2021 trial.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Costs — Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) – murder – whether if prosecution had all relevant facts it would have been reasonable to institute proceedings

Legislation Cited:
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), ss 2, 3, 4
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 65, 79, 137

Cases Cited:
Chahal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] NSWCA 152
Cornwell v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 260; [2007] HCA 12
Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2007] NSWCA 121; (2007) 171 A Crim R 510
R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197
R v Kulwinder Singh (No 1) [2019] NSWSC 1000
R v Moore [2015] NSWSC 1263
R v Pavy (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 9 December 1997)
R v Singh (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1410
R v Singh (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1911
R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75
R v Singh (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 76
R v Singh (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 213
R v Singh (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 267
Regina v Bernard Lawrence Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197

Category: Costs
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kulwinder Singh (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Hogan (Crown)
Ms M Cunneen SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/00330134
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Monday 2 December 2013 was a hot sunny day in Rouse Hill. On that day, Parwinder Kaur and her husband Kulwinder Singh had both worked shifts at their respective jobs. Ms Singh came home first and her husband some time afterwards. Some time later, Ms Kaur emerged down the driveway of her home with her clothing on fire. Mr Singh was behind her trying to pat out the flames with his hands. This was observed by neighbours who ran to assist. Ambulance officers soon arrived but Ms Kaur died the following day as a result of complications from extensive thermal injuries. She had received 90% full thickness burns to her body but her scalp, long hair and most of her face were not burned. At the time she emerged from her home, the only other person in her home…

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 (No 8)

Details

AGLC: R v Singh (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 51
Case: [2023] NSWSC 51
Decision Date: 10 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the accused, Singh, who was charged with the murder of a person. The dispute centred on whether the prosecution had all the relevant facts to reasonably institute proceedings against Singh. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The key legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had all the relevant facts that it would have been reasonable for it to institute proceedings against the accused. The court had to determine if the prosecution had acted reasonably in bringing the case to court given the information available to them at the time.
The court found that the prosecution had all the relevant facts it would have been reasonable to institute proceedings. The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the prosecution had acted reasonably in bringing the case to court. The court emphasised that it is not necessary for the prosecution to have all the evidence before instituting proceedings, but rather that they have a reasonable basis for doing so. The court found that the prosecution had met this threshold in this case. As a result, the court dismissed the application for costs and determined that the prosecution had acted reasonably in bringing the case to court. The court made no orders for costs.

Orders