Legal Research
Cases
R v Singh, Patrick

R v Singh, Patrick

Case [2016] NSWDC 390 15 April 2016

Supply of Prohibited Drugs

Possession of Prohibited Weapons

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SINGH, Patrick [2016] NSWDC 390
Date of orders: 15 April 2016
Decision date: 15 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [125]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug – cocaine – supply prohibited drug – MDMA – taking part in or attempting to manufacture a prohibited drug – possess prohibited weapon – SENTENCE – delay – relevance of Form 1 matters – totality – offences committed while on home detention bail – bail for prior inter-state offences – historical offending – effect of sentence despite notable rehabilitation for more recent offending.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW) 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW) 1985
Firearms Act (NSW) 1996
Weapons Prohibition Act (NSW) 1998
Cases Cited: Abbas & Ors [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
Clark (unrep, 15/3/90, NSWCCA)
Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247
R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Raniga v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 36
Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
Todd v Regina (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Patrick Singh (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms E Sercombe (Crown)
Ms B. Rigg SC (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2009/00283054
Publication restriction: Nil

sentence

HIS HONOUR: Patrick Kishor Singh appears today for sentence in relation to seven offences for which he has been committed for sentence to this court. The offences were variously committed by him between early to mid-May 2007 and on or about 21 or 22 December 2007. In considering, obviously, the appropriate sentences, many things have to be taken into account, but one thing that needs to be taken into account in the context of consideration and totality of criminality is the relationship of offences one to the other and, of course, the period of time over which they are committed. This is not a case of sentencing a man in relation to what can fairly be said to be a large number of offences committed over a relatively short period of time.
There are in addition, a large number of matters on four Forms 1. There are separate Forms 1 which I will identify shortly in respect of four of the committal for sentence matters, I will provide particulars of those charges shortly. In identifying the specific charges, I will briefly describe them, but also ascribe to the relevant charge the sequence number as it is disclosed in the Crown cover sheet. The relevant orders to be made obviously will be made by reference to those sequence numbers which attach to the court attendance notices produced to this court upon which 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, Patrick

Details

AGLC: R v Singh, Patrick [2016] NSWDC 390
Case: [2016] NSWDC 390
Decision Date: 15 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Patrick Singh, was convicted in the County Court for various drug-related offences, including the supply of commercial quantities of cocaine and MDMA, participation in the manufacture of prohibited drugs, possession of a prohibited weapon, and offences committed while on home detention bail. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the County Court, which was deemed to be too lenient. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues revolved around the sentencing of the appellant, particularly the relevance of delays in sentencing, the consideration of Form 1 matters, and the totality principle. The court was also required to evaluate the impact of the appellant's conduct while on home detention bail, his prior bail for interstate offences, and his historical offending record in relation to his more recent rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal determined that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the offences committed. The court highlighted the importance of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing, particularly given the appellant's history of criminal conduct. The appeal court also considered the totality principle, taking into account all of the appellant's offending. The court held that the sentence should reflect the cumulative effect of the appellant's criminal activities. The sentence was deemed inadequate given the appellant's significant criminal history and the nature of the current offences.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced to a full-time custodial sentence, with detailed orders provided in the reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [125]

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, Patrick [2016] NSWDC 390

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

R v Todd [2024] NZHC 897
Citation 1 (Para 33)

…is context their Honours reflected upon, with approval, a 1979 judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but reported in 1982, that is, Todd v Regina (1982) 2 NSWLR 517, particularly the observations of the then learned Chief Justice, Street CJ at 518-520. In that judgment of Todd Street CJ said it was:…
Raniga v R [2016] NSWCCA 36
Citation 2 (Para 102)

…In relation to the gun possession charge this is an offence of substance. I was taken to the decision of Raniga v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 36, particularly the judgment of Justice Davies given with the approval of the Court. His Honour cited with approval the observations in Cao, a judgment of one of his sister or b…
Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247
Citation 3 (Para 17)

…t of Criminal Appeal including Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104, R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115, Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 and recently in Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 amongst many other cases.…
Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Citation 4 (Para 15)

…ent authority dealing with the issues that relate to sentencing for Form 1 matters. She extensively quoted in fact from a decision of Abbas & Ors [2013] NSWCCA 115, particularly in the judgment of the learned Chief Judge at Common Law, Justice Hoeben, which matters I have also taken into account.…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 5 (Para 95)

…In relation to the issue of the standard non-parole period I am mindful of the judgment of Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 which considered the previously operating provision s 54A(2) and s 54B(2). Those provisions well amended in the wake of Muldrock . Of course, Muldrock set aside the rigidity of approach that had…
Fayd'herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20
Citation 6 (Para 17)

…ly in a range of other decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal including Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104, R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115, Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 and recently in Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 amongst many other cases.…
R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115
Citation 7 (Para 17)

…That has been considered very closely in a range of other decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal including Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104, R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115, Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 and recently in Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 amongst many other cases.…
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
Citation 8 (Para 17)

…k (unrep, 15/3/90, NSWCCA). That has been considered very closely in a range of other decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal including Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104, R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115, Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 and recently in Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 amongst many other cases.…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 9 (Para 14)

…s and it is interesting to note that that observation in 2002 was followed by the observations of the High Court in the decision of Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25, specifically criticising any endeavour to in some mathematical way calculate a particular matter to be taken into account in the sentencing task. It is…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Citation 10 (Para 12)

…ourt of Criminal Appeal in relation to sentencing and taking into account matters on a Form 1, known as Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147.…
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540
Citation 11 (Para 103)

…learned counsel for the prisoner. I have referred to Pearce . Another decision not I believe cited by learned counsel is the decision of R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540, a New South Wales decision which reflects upon the sequelae or the consequences of Pearce and the consideration of reflecting totality of criminalit…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 383
Citation 12 (Para 3)

…nce to be imposed by regard to the guideline judgment on assessing a discount for the utilitarian value of pleas of guilty of R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. The committal for sentence offences in sequence are firstly an offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, to wit, methyl…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 13

…20 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115 R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540 R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Raniga v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 36 Regina v Gu [200…
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Citation 14 (Para 31)

…ct of related offending. This has been discussed in a range of authorities, Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 1610, and particularly Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 (at 62-63).…

Legislation Cited

No legislation cited in this judgment.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v SINGH, Patrick [2016] NSWDC 390
Date of orders:	15 April 2016
Decision date:	15 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [125]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug – cocaine – supply prohibited drug – MDMA – taking part in or attempting to manufacture a prohibited drug – possess prohibited weapon – SENTENCE – delay – relevance of Form 1 matters – totality – offences committed while on home detention bail – bail for prior inter-state offences – historical offending – effect of sentence despite notable rehabilitation for more recent offending.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (NSW) 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW) 1985 Firearms Act (NSW) 1996 Weapons Prohibition Act (NSW) 1998
Cases Cited:	Abbas & Ors [2013] NSWCCA 115 Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147 Clark (unrep, 15/3/90, NSWCCA) Fayd’herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Mill v The Queen (1998) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Polley v R [2015] NSWCCA 247 R v Gip [2006] NSWCCA 115 R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540 R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Raniga v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 36 Regina v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104 Todd v Regina (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Patrick Singh (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms E Sercombe (Crown) Ms B. Rigg SC (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2009/00283054
Publication restriction:	Nil