Legal Research
Cases
Singh v R

Singh v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 353 18 December 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v R [2020] NSWCCA 353
Hearing dates: 30 November 2020
Date of orders: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Before: Bell P at [1]; Johnson J at [72]; R A Hulme J at [73]
Decision:
Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – application for leave to appeal against sentence – offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception – where applicant was aged between 23 and 26 years of age at time of offending – whether sentencing judge should have had regard to applicant’s youth and asserted immaturity – boundaries of youth and adult responsibility – whether offender acted as an “adult” – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 1043A, 1311(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(3)(j), 44(2), 44(2B)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 192E(1)(b)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)(c)
Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Abdul v R [2019] NSWCCA 18
BP v The Queen (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
Clarke v R [2009] NSWCCA 49
Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213
Curtis v R [2016] NSWCCA 299
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Edwards v R [2020] NSWCCA 141
Frahm v R [2014] NSWCCA 10
Hartman v R (2011) 87 ACSR 52; [2011] NSWCCA 261
Hejazi v R (2009) 217 A Crim R 151; [2009] NSWCCA 282
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
HJ v R [2014] NSWCCA 21
Ho v R [2013] NSWCCA 174
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53
KT v The Queen (2008) 182 A Crim R 571; [2008] NSWCCA 51
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
MD v R [2015] NSWCCA 37
MS2 v The Queen (2005) 158 A Crim R 93; [2005] NSWCCA 397
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Pereira v R [2018] NSWCCA 171
R v Adamson (2002) 132 A Crim R 511; [2002] NSWCCA 349
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v Curtis (No 3) (2016) 114 ACSR 184; [2016] NSWSC 866
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451; [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Hoang [2003] NSWCCA 380
R v LC [2001] NSWCCA 175
R v Pham & Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58
R v TJP [1999] NSWCCA 408
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v Voss [2003] NSWCCA 182
Thammavongsa v The Queen (2015) 251 A Crim R 342; [2015] NSWCCA 107
Thompson-Davis v R [2013] NSWCCA 75
TL v R [2020] NSWCCA…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Singh v R [2020] NSWCCA 353
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 353
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Singh v R, the appellant was convicted of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge should have taken into account his age and immaturity at the time of the offending. The case raised questions about the appropriate weight to give to youth and immaturity in sentencing, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the appellant's youth and immaturity should have been considered in the sentencing process.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the appellant and examined the sentencing principles relevant to the case. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the appellant's age and immaturity but had decided that they were not significant enough to warrant a reduced sentence. The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, including the appellant's role in the deception and the extent of the financial advantage obtained. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had exercised his discretion correctly and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's age and immaturity but had determined that they were not significant mitigating factors in the circumstances of the case. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant's youth and immaturity did not warrant a reduced sentence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence.

No orders were made by the court. The appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders