R v Singh, Singh, Singh, Singh and Singh
[2011] NSWDC 217
•08 September 2011
District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v SINGH, SINGH, SINGH, SINGH & SINGH [2011] NSWDC 217 Hearing dates: 25 August 2011 Decision date: 08 September 2011 Before: Berman SC Decision: Sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence- Enter a dwelling house and commit serious indictable offence in circumstances of special aggravation - Wounding - Offensive weapon - In company - Deprivation of liberty - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - Common assault - Early pleas Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Amrinder Singh
Jagdar Singh
Jatinder Singh
Harmwinder Singh
Gurwinder SinghRepresentation: Mr M Pincott - Crown
Mr S J Stanton - The offenders
The Director of Public Prosecutions - The Crown
File Number(s): 2009/323284 -2009/286911 - 2009/286907 - 2009/323279 - 2009/323278
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: Today I am sentencing five people for offences involving acts of considerable violence. All five offenders are men of otherwise good character with no prior criminal history, yet what they did together on 13 December 2009 is something which requires that they each be punished, and significantly so.
The five offenders are Amrinder Singh, Jagdar Singh, Jatinder Singh, Harminder Singh and Gurwinder Singh. Five other people were involved in the matter as victims, Harvinder Singh, Dalbag Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Valjit Singh and Karmjit Kaur, the only female involved. In view of the fact that many people concerned in this matter have the same family name I will refer to them, without any disrespect being intended, by their given names. All people involved in this matter appear to have been born in the Punjab region of India, coming to Australia on various forms of visa.
The events of 13 December 2009 seem to have had their genesis in some approaches made by Harvinder, Valjit and Gurpreet towards a married woman, Ramon Diep. Her husband was not living with her at the time. He working in Melbourne. Ms Diep was living with her cousin, Amrinder, in Griffith. The evidence suggests that Harvinder was paying attention to her which in the Punjabi tradition was not welcome. Ms Diep told her cousin what had happened. On 13 December 2009 she says that she was followed to her home by Valjit and Gurpreet. Gurpreet took her hand and asked her whether she would like to move in with them. Ms Diep said that she did not and asked that her hand be released. This did not happen and she said that she would call her cousin Amrinder. In response Valjit and Gurpreet said to her that it did not matter who was called, they were not going to stop. It was then that Ms Diep called her cousin Amrinder and as a result of speaking to him he and four of his friends committed the offences I am about to describe.
The offenders lived in Griffith. Harvinder, Dalbag, and a woman named Karmjit Kaur, lived next door. Gurpreet and Valjit were visiting them on the afternoon of 13 December 2009. Valjit was upstairs, Harvinder and Dalbag were downstairs in the lounge room. Gurpreet and Karmjit were downstairs in the kitchen.
The internal door leading from the garage to the interior of the premises was partially open. The offenders came running through the door. Amrinder was holding a baseball bat and Jagdar was holding a metal rod. Some of the offenders were shouting "hit them, hit them" or "kill them, kill them". Dalbag said "what's up"? Jagdar said "move away, we have nothing against you" and pushed Dalbag. Amrinder hit Dalbag with the baseball bat to the right hand causing pain and swelling. Gurwinder hit the female involved, Karmjit Kaur, to the face a number of times. Gurpreet started to run up the stairs. Harminder and Jagdar hit Gurpreet with the baseball bat and iron rod respectively. Whilst doing so they were yelling "kill him, kill him". Gurpreet ran into a bedroom and closed the door, holding it with his hands. Valjit came out of the bathroom upstairs. Amrinder hit him to the face with the baseball bat, causing a cut under his right eye.
Jagdar, Harminder and Jatinder pushed on the bedroom door and gained entry. The offenders continued to hit Gurpreet to his arms, shoulder and back. Gurpreet felt something hit his head and he fell to the ground. He tried to cover his head. Despite the fact that he was helpless on the ground covering, the three offenders continued to hit him. One of the offenders was saying "kill him, don't leave him". Gurpreet said "save me, save me, don't kill me". It was then that the offenders stopped hitting him.
While this occurred upstairs Dalbag attempted to go upstairs to assist Gurpreet but Gurwinder held his hands to stop him from going upstairs. He then pushed Dalbag into the corner of the room and slapped him to the left side of his face. Gurwinder said to Dalbag "you stay in the corner".
Whilst this was happening Harminder restrained Harvinder on the mattress. One of the offenders downstairs, we do not know who, held Karmjit Kaur's hands and pushed her from behind, hurting her neck. Gurwinder hit her again in the face with the back of his hand, this time making her tooth bleed. Valjit ran downstairs and out of the unit.
Dalbag and Harvinder went upstairs and saw that Gurpreet was bleeding from his head and was largely incoherent. Dalbag and Harvinder assisted him outside the unit. He said to them "save me, I'm going to die".
The offenders left the victims' unit and returned to their own. They took the baseball bat/iron rod with them and then left in a white car. Police and ambulance were called. Gurpreet was transferred by ambulance to Griffith Base Hospital where he stayed overnight and received stitches to the cut to his head. Gurpreet also suffered bruising to his hands, back and right side of his thigh. Valjit was transported to hospital and received five stitches to the cut below his eye.
As a result of this conduct each of the offenders is to sentenced for an offence of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence in circumstances of special aggravation. The circumstance of special aggravation relied on by the Crown concerns the wound inflicted by Valjit but other circumstances of special aggravation exist, namely the wound to Gurpreet's head. It is to be noted that there are a number of circumstances of aggravation, not special aggravation which are also present. Amrinder and Jagdar were armed with offensive weapons. The offenders were in company, corporal violence was used, the people inside the house had their liberty deprived for a short period and each of the offenders knew that there were people inside the place where the offence was committed.
As well as that offence there are related offences on a s 166 certificate. Gurwinder is to be sentenced as well as the primary matter for an offence of assault occasion actual bodily harm. Other offenders to be sentenced by me on related matters are: Harminder for the common assault occasioned by restraining Harvinder on the mattress downstairs; Jagdar for the common assault occasioned by pushing Dalbag; and Amrinder for the offence of assault occasion actual bodily harm which came about when he hit Dalbag with a baseball bat to his right hand.
All five offenders appear to have reacted to what they perceive as severe provocation, occasioned by the unwanted attention being shown to Ms Diep but this scarcely explains the extent of the violence, let alone what appears to be Gurwinder's entirely gratuitous assaults on the only female present in the house, Ms Karmjit Kaur.
As I mentioned earlier, all offenders were born in the Punjab region of India. Amrinder was raised in a stable and supportive family environment. He married his wife in India and they came to Australia in 2008 when his wife gained a place as an overseas student. Amrinder was granted a visa to live in Australia as the spouse of a student but their relationship deteriorated until they divorced in September 2010. He lived at Griffith at the time of the offence, working on a long term casual basis on a farm. A reference from his employer, Deeda Singh was tendered on his behalf. It speaks highly of him, saying that he is a true asset to the community as well as his employer.
Jagdar was also raised within a stable and supportive family environment. He too came to Australia after his wife was granted a student visa and he was granted a visa to live in Australia as the spouse of a student. At the time of the offence his wife was living in Melbourne while he worked in the Griffith area in various casual farmhand positions. The pre-sentence report states that Jagdar's employer said he was an excellent worker and a person with exceptionally good and reliable personal qualities.
Jatinder was likewise raised in a stable and supportive family environment in India and came to Australia on a visa granted to him as the spouse of a student. He was working, doing casual farm labouring work in the Griffith area at the time of the offence but more recently he has been living in Melbourne with his wife and working at a car wash business.
Harminder was also raised in a stable and supportive family environment and came to Australia as the spouse of a student. He and his wife live in Griffith with one infant son. He is working at a local packing shed and was described by his employer as an excellent worker who was held in high personal regard.
Finally Gurwinder was also raised in a stable and supportive family environment and came to Australia as the spouse of a student. He and his wife live in Toowoomba in Queensland where he does casual farm work.
Given the lack of criminal history and the otherwise good character of the offenders it is remarkable that they appear for sentence today on such serious charges. It is also remarkable given their otherwise good character, that they each lied to the author of the pre-sentence reports prepared concerning each of them. Everyone of the offenders denied that anyone was armed, a position of course they later abandoned. The fact that they each told that lie however is an important aspect in determining their attitude, at least at the time of lying, to their offences. None of the offenders gave evidence, so none of the offenders told me that he was sorry for what he had done.
Mr Stanton who appeared for each of the offenders told me that his clients had asked him to convey their remorse to me, but that is a long way from the offenders accepting responsibility for the wrongfulness of their conduct. Indeed there is little in the material before me to suggest that if the offenders were faced with the same circumstances again, they would not commit similar offences. This suggests that there is a greater need for personal deterrence to be part of the sentence which I will impose upon the offenders than would otherwise be the case.
Of course general deterrence and retribution are also important aspects of the sentences I must impose and it was conceded by Mr Stanton that in each case a custodial sentence of some description was inevitable. I will return later to the question as to what form that custodial sentence should take.
Each offender pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and so I will reduce the sentences I would otherwise have imposed by twenty-five per cent. I also regard it as a mitigating feature that, to a limited extent, these offences were provoked by unwanted attention being paid to a married woman. I do have to say however that whatever the level of insult or dishonour that such conduct involves, it is for the offenders when in Australia to obey Australian standards of moral responsibility and criminal law.
Subjectively, there is little to distinguish between the five offenders. They all have remarkably similar backgrounds and they are all roughly the same age but they did not all do the same things in the commission of their various offences. It is appropriate to distinguish them as far as their objective criminality is concerned.
Amrinder and Jagdar are at the top; they were armed with weapons and used them. At the next level down are Jatinder and Gurwinder, who each inflicted violence, Jatinder on Gurpreet upstairs and Gurwinder downstairs. It is to be noted however that Gurwinder's actions involved two specific offences of violence on top of the major offence common to all offenders which will see his sentence approaching that of those I will impose on Amrinder and Jagdar. Finally at the lowest level we have Harminder who remained downstairs and whose actions appear to have been limited to restraining Harvinder on a mattress, but even he, it must be remembered, was playing his part in a joint criminal enterprise to commit an offence of significant gravity.
Of course some of the distinguishing features to which I referred are the subject of specific offences to be dealt with separately as they appear on a s 166 certificate. It is important therefore that I state categorically that I have not double counted by both sentencing an offender for a specific offence appearing on the s 166 certificate and then also taking that into account as an aggravating circumstance for the offence of enter dwelling house with intent in circumstances of special aggravation.
Mr Stanton submitted that I would suspend any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his clients. I am not going to do that. In some cases that is because the length of the sentence is such that suspension is not an option and in the remaining cases, that is because suspending the sentence would be insufficient to properly punish these offenders and insufficiently deter them and others in the community from the commission of similar offences.
In each case I make a finding of special circumstances in the offender's favour relating to the fact that this will be his first time in custody and he will benefit from an extended period of supervision upon release to parole. The offenders are sentenced as follows:
Amrinder Singh for the offence of assault occasion actual bodily harm appearing on the s 166 certificate the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of six months, to have commenced on 4 September 2011. That sentence is a fixed term because of the sentence I am about to announce. For the offence of specially aggravated break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of twelve months, to commence on 5 December 2011. I set a head sentence for that matter of two years. Thus the overall sentence is one consisting of a non-parole period of one year and three months and a head sentence of two years and three months. The non-parole period will expire on 4 December 2012 on which date the offender is to be released to parole.
Jagdar Singh for the offence of common assault appearing on the s 166 certificate the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two months, to have commenced on 4 September 2011. That sentence is a fixed term because of the sentence I am about to announce. For the offence of specially aggravated break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of twelve months, to commence on 5 October 2011 and a head sentence of two years. The overall sentence is thus one consisting of a non-parole period of one year and one month with a head sentence of two years and one month. The offender is to be released to parole on 4 October 2012.
Jatinder Singh. I sentence him to imprisonment for the offence of specially aggravated enter dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. I set a non-parole period of nine months, to have commenced on 7 September 2011. I set a head sentence of eighteen months. The non-parole period will expire on 6 June 2012 on which day he is to be released to parole.
Harminder Singh is sentenced to imprisonment for the offence of specially aggravated enter dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. I set a non-parole period of six months, to have commenced yesterday, 7 September 2011. I set a head sentence of twelve months. The non-parole period will expire on 6 March 2012, on which date the offender is to be released to parole.
Gurwinder Singh for the offence of common assault appearing on the s 166 certificate the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of two months, to have commenced on 7 September 2011. For the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm appearing on the 166 certificate he is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of six months, to commence on 7 October 2011. Those sentences are fixed terms because of the sentence I am about to announce. For the offence of specially aggravated enter a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, to commence on 7 December 2011 with a head sentence of eighteen months. Thus the overall sentence is one consisting of a non-parole period of one year and a head sentence of one year nine months. The non-parole period will expire on 6 September 2012 on which day the offender is to be released to parole.
I dismiss the back up matters on the s 166 certificates.
Before concluding I should say that I am fully aware that the ratio of non-parole period to head sentence is not the same for each offender. This is not an oversight. In my view the non-parole periods I have imposed are in each case the shortest which would properly reflect the objective gravity of each of the offender's conduct.
**********`
Decision last updated: 20 February 2012
0
0
0