Singh, Brendon v The Queen - [2011] NSWCCA 100

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: SINGH, Brendon v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCCA 100

Hearing Date(s): 20 September 2010

Decision Date: 28 April 2011

Jurisdiction:

Before:
Latham J at 1
Rothman J at 2
Price J at 141

Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - unreasonable verdict - alibi evidence - requirement to disprove alibi beyond reasonable doubt - requirement to prove guilt to requisite standard as well - inconsistency between evidence of stabbing and alibi evidence - advantage of jury seeing and hearing testimony - verdict not unreasonable

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:
M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Rasic [2009] NSWCCA 202
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1999] HCA 3; (1999) 160 ALR 588; (1999) 73 ALJR 306
The Queen v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 85 ALJR 8

Texts Cited:

Category: Principal judgment

Parties:
Brendon Singh (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:
Counsel:
G Brady / M McMahon (Appellant)
J Pickering (Respondent)

- Solicitors:
Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Stewart (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File number(s): 2008/13305

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

- Before: Solomon DCJ

- Date of Decision: 23 October 2009

- Citation:

- Court File Number(s) 2008/13305

Publication Restriction:

Judgment

LATHAM J : I agree with Rothman J.

ROTHMAN J : The appellant, Brendon Singh, was found guilty by a jury of malicious wounding and was sentenced by a judge of the District Court to a total sentence of 2 years and 6 months including a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the non-parole period had concluded and the appeal concerned conviction only. The sole ground of the appeal was that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and/or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

Allegation

The trial proceeded over approximately 11 days and the initial indictment was a charge of wound with intent to murder; in the alternative, malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm; and, further in the alternative, malicious wounding. For the last-mentioned alternative, malicious wounding, as previously stated, the jury returned a guilty verdict and, necessarily, there were not guilty verdicts on counts one and two.

The essential allegation at trial was that Mr Singh stabbed the victim, Thomas Vignes, on 29 June 2007 at premises in Dee Why. There was no doubt (and certainly no issue) that a stabbing occurred at the premises on the date in question. The only real issue of controversy was whether Mr Singh was the perpetrator of the stabbing, or it was another. The evidence in the proceedings will be subject to detailed analysis later in these reasons, but, for present purposes, it is essential to understand that the allegation, supported by four witnesses, was that Mr Singh stabbed Mr Vignes. The four witnesses each saw 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 Singh, Brendon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Singh, Brendon v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 100
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 100
Decision Date: 28 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh, Brendon v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, The Queen, appealed against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal that had quashed the conviction of the appellant, Brendon Singh, for the murder of his wife, Anjuli Kaur. The appellant had been convicted by a jury on the basis of evidence that was inconsistent with his alibi defence. The appeal was based on the grounds that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the issue of the alibi evidence and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The legal issues that the High Court was required to decide were whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the issue of the alibi evidence and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable. The Court held that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury on the issue of the alibi evidence, as the direction given was consistent with the law. The Court also held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, as the jury had heard and seen the testimony of the witnesses and was in the best position to assess the credibility of the evidence. The Court held that the jury was required to consider all of the evidence, including the alibi evidence, and to determine whether the Crown had proved the appellant's guilt to the requisite standard.

The High Court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, as the jury had heard and seen the testimony of the witnesses and was in the best position to assess the credibility of the evidence. The Court held that the jury was required to consider all of the evidence, including the alibi evidence, and to determine whether the Crown had proved the appellant's guilt to the requisite standard. The Court held that the jury was not required to be satisfied to an absolute certainty that the appellant was guilty, but rather that the Crown had proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence before them and that the Court was not at liberty to interfere with the verdict.

The High Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Anjuli Kaur. The Court held that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence before them and that the Court was not at liberty to interfere with the verdict. The Court held that the jury had heard and seen the testimony of the witnesses and was in the best position to assess the credibility of the evidence. The Court held that the jury was required to consider all of the evidence, including the alibi evidence, and to determine whether the Crown had proved the appellant's guilt to the requisite standard. The Court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the conviction of the appellant was restored.

Orders