Rajeev Singh v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0215

RAJEEV SINGH	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	T FORREST and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 May 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 93
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 1066 (Judge Georgiou)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Extension of time – Drug trafficking, firearms and other offences – Applicant sentenced to 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with 6 years’ non-parole period – Whether sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with 4 months’ cumulation for failure to comply with order to provide information manifestly excessive – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Parity – Three relevant co-offenders – Whether sentence infringed parity principle – No error – No justifiable sense of grievance – Application for extension of time refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms CA Boston	Galbally Parker Barristers & Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr B Kissane QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

T FORREST JA

KENNEDY JA:

On 20 February 2020, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to 10 indictable charges on two indictments, as well as three related summary offences.

Indictment C1811815.1 contained one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, methylamphetamine, two charges of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, methylamphetamine, and one charge of failing to comply with an order to provide information (‘drugs indictment’). Indictment J10995116.1 contained five charges of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and one charge of handling stolen goods (‘firearms indictment’).

The applicant was sentenced on 17 July 2020 as follows:

Charge	Offence	Legislation	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment 1 (C1811815.1) (‘drugs indictment’)
1	Trafficking in a drug of dependence	s 71AC(1) Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981	15 years	3 years and 6 months	9 months
2	Trafficking in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity	s 71AA Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981	25 years	5 years	Base
3	Trafficking in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity	s 71AA Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981	25 years	5 years	18 months
4	Failing to comply with order to provide information	s 465AA(9) Crimes Act 1958	5 years	12 months	4 months
Total effective sentence on Indictment 1		7 years and 7 months’ imprisonment
Indictment 2 (J10995116.1) (‘firearms indictment’)
1	Prohibited person possess firearm	s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996	10 years	18 months	5 months
2	Prohibited person possess firearm	s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996	10 years	16 months	4 months
3	Prohibited person possess firearm	s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996	10 years	2 years	Base
4	Prohibited person possess firearm	s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996	10 years	16 months	4 months
5	Prohibited person possess firearm	s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996	10 years	20 months	6 months
6	Handling stolen goods	s 88 Crimes Act 1958	15 years	3 months	1 month
Total effective sentence on Indictment 2

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 Rajeev Singh v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rajeev Singh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 93
Case: [2022] VSCA 93
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rajeev Singh appeals against his sentence in the High Court, arguing that the sentence imposed for his failure to comply with an order to provide information is manifestly excessive and infringes the parity principle. Singh was originally sentenced to 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a 6 years’ non-parole period for drug trafficking, firearms, and other related offences. The sentence in question for the failure to comply with the order was 12 months’ imprisonment with 4 months’ cumulation. Singh contends that this sentence is excessively harsh and disproportionate, and it breaches the principle of parity with three relevant co-offenders who received lesser sentences for similar conduct.

The court examines whether the sentence for Singh's non-compliance was manifestly excessive, considering the seriousness of the underlying offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It was noted that the sentence for non-compliance was part of a global sentence, and the cumulative effect of all sentences must be considered. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive as it appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for compliance with court orders. Furthermore, the court assessed the parity principle, comparing Singh's sentence with those of his co-offenders, and concluded that there was no infringement of the principle of parity. The court found no error in the sentence and determined that there was no justifiable sense of grievance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was refused. The court upheld the original sentence, finding that it was proportionate to the offence and consistent with the sentences of co-offenders. The High Court's decision reinforces the importance of compliance with court orders and the appropriate use of sentencing discretion in maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Orders