Singh v Police - [2022] SASC 67

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
SINGH v POLICE
[2022] SASC 67
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Blue
8 July 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA - PARTICULAR CASES
The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of aggravated assault and placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 18 months and come up for sentence if called upon pursuant to section 97 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA)(the Act).
The appellant appeals against the recording of a conviction on the ground that the Magistrate erred in recording a conviction.
Held:
1    Observations on the provisions in the Act empowering a court not to record a conviction and the different criteria applying to those different provisions (at [24-27]).
2    The Magistrate did not make the process errors asserted by the appellant and the exercise of the discretion was not vitiated (at [29, 40-42]).
3    Appeal dismissed (at [47]).
Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 11, s 23, s 24 and s 97, referred to.
Kroni v The Queen [2021] SASCFC 15; R v Fati [2021] SASCFC 99; R v Lutze (2014) 121 SASR; R v Nemer (2003) 87 SASR 168, considered.

SINGH v POLICE
[2022] SASC 67

BLUE J: The appellant Gurpreet Singh was convicted by a Magistrate of aggravated assault[1] and placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 18 months and come up for sentence if called upon pursuant to section 97 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (the Sentencing Act).
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 section 20(3).
The appellant appeals against the recording of the conviction on the ground that the Magistrate erred in recording a conviction.
Background
In May 2021 the appellant’s wife, the complainant, was working as a cleaner at a shopping centre in addition to undertaking a Master of Business Administration in Tourism.
On 19 May 2021 at about 6.00 am, the appellant’s wife arrived at the shopping centre and started work. She told her employer that she no longer wanted to work as a cleaner there. The employer telephoned the appellant and told him that his wife no longer wanted to work at the shopping centre. The appellant attempted to telephone his wife and then drove to the shopping centre, arriving at about 7.30 am.
The appellant approached his wife, grabbed her by the jaw, slapped her once to the face and dragged her into the cleaning office at the shopping centre. The Magistrate said that his actions were the result of his anger at his wife and were taken for the purpose of controlling her.
The appellant’s actions were witnessed by persons present at the shopping centre and recorded by the centre’s CCTV cameras. The police attended and interviewed the appellant, who admitted to assaulting his wife. He said that he behaved in this way out of love…

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 v Police

Details

AGLC: Singh v Police [2022] SASC 67
Case: [2022] SASC 67
Decision Date: 8 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against the conviction was brought by the appellant in the court. The appellant contested the decision of the Magistrate to record his conviction following a guilty plea to an assault charge against his wife. The incident in question occurred when the appellant, in a fit of anger, assaulted his wife at a shopping centre where she was working. The Magistrate found that the assault was an attempt to control the complainant, and it was witnessed by others and captured on CCTV. The appellant admitted to the assault, claiming his actions were motivated by love. The appeal argues that the Magistrate erred in recording the conviction despite the guilty plea.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate erred in recording the conviction after the appellant pleaded guilty. The appellant's submission focused on the nature of the guilty plea and whether it should have precluded the Magistrate from recording a conviction. The court was required to determine if the Magistrate's decision to record a conviction was justified and whether there were any grounds for appeal based on the recording of the conviction.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the appellant's ground of appeal was not established. The court held that the Magistrate was correct in recording the conviction despite the guilty plea. The court considered the nature of the assault, the appellant's history, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court determined that there was no error in the Magistrate's decision and that the conviction should stand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The court will hear the parties concerning any other orders sought, which may include matters related to sentencing or additional legal relief. The final orders will be determined based on the submissions made by the parties regarding any further legal issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appellant appeals against the recording of the conviction on the ground that the Magistrate erred in recording a conviction.Background In May 2021 the appellant’s wife, the complainant, was working as a cleaner at a shopping centre in addition to undertaking a Master of Business Administration in Tourism. On 19 May 2021 at about 6.00 am, the appellant’s wife arrived at the shopping centre and started work. She told her employer that she no longer wanted to work as a cleaner there. The employer telephoned the appellant and told him that his wife no longer wanted to work at the shopping centre. The appellant attempted to telephone his wife and then drove to the shopping centre, arriving at about 7.30 am. The appellant approached his wife, grabbed her by the jaw, slapped her once to the face and dragged her into the cleaning office at the shopping centre. The Magistrate said that his actions were the result of his anger at his wife and were taken for the purpose of controlling her. The appellant’s actions were witnessed by persons present at the shopping centre and recorded by the centre’s CCTV cameras. The police attended and interviewed the appellant, who admitted to assaulting his wife. He said that he behaved in this way out of love for the complainant. The appellant was arrested by the police and released on police bail. It was a condition of the bail agreement that the appellant not approach or communicate with his wife. In addition, an intervention order was made effectively containing the same condition. The appellant commenced and ultimately completed a domestic violence program. On 29 July 2021 the appellant first appeared in the Magistrates Court. The condition that he not approach or communicate with his wife was removed from the terms of his bail and the intervention order. On 2 December 2021 the Magistrate heard submissions on penalty and delivered ex tempore remarks on penalty. The appellant was born in India in 1995. He married his wife in India in August 2018. In February 2019 he and his wife travelled to Australia, she on a student visa and he on a bridging visa. They initially lived in Melbourne and then moved to Adelaide because her college was located in Adelaide. She also worked part time. The appellant’s wife completed a Master of Business Administration in Tourism in late 2021. The appellant works primarily as a driver. A favourable reference was provided to the Magistrate by a courier company that employed him from November 2020 onwards. The employer described him as hardworking, dedicated, honest, respectful and sincere. On 29 July 2021, when his bail conditions were varied, the appellant and his wife resumed cohabitation. They wish to continue living in Australia, make Adelaide their home and in due course have children.Sentencing submissions The police prosecutor informed the Magistrate that the appellant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was eligible for the maximum sentencing discount (up to 40 per cent). The police prosecutor said that the prosecution was of the view that a bond to be of good behaviour was appropriate in the circumstances and that the prosecution was not submitting that a conviction ought to be recorded, leaving that issue to the Magistrate.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The ground of appeal is not established.Conclusion I dismiss the appeal. I will hear the parties concerning any other orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.