Legal Research
Cases
Singh v The King

Singh v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 95 1 May 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0228

HARPREET SINGH	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, TAYLOR and KIDD JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	8 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 95
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	(Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 12 March 2024, Judge Lauritsen)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Intentionally causing serious injury and handling stolen goods – Prosecutor cross-examined principal prosecution witness without leave – Acquiescence of defence counsel – Whether defence counsel incompetent – Application granted – Appeal allowed – Convictions set aside – New trial ordered.

---

Counsel
Applicant		Mr T Kassimatis KC with Mr C Wareham
Respondent		Mr D Glynn
Solicitors
Applicant	Theo Magazis & Associates
Respondent	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
TAYLOR JA
KIDD JA:

Introduction

A jury empanelled in the County Court found the applicant guilty on 12 March 2024 of intentionally causing serious injury[1] (charge 1) and handling stolen goods[2] (charge 3).[3]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 16.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 88.
[3]No verdict was taken on charge 2, recklessly causing serious injury, which was an alternative to the first charge.
On 29 August 2024, the trial judge sentenced the applicant to 24 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 months.[4]
[4]The judge imposed concurrent sentences of 24 months’ imprisonment on charge 1 and 14 days’ imprisonment on charge 3.
The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on four proposed grounds, contending that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred:
1A… as a result of the course adopted by the prosecutor at trial. In particular, the trial miscarried because the prosecutor:
(a) without first seeking and being granted leave from the trial judge under s 38 of the Evidence Act 2008, cross-examined Joyce Zuidam at large and for the whole of her evidence-in-chief;
(b) departed materially from his opening to the jury in his prosecution at the trial;
(c) adduced and relied upon evidence of incriminating conduct without giving notice under the Jury Directions Act 2015 or warning the Court or defence.
1B… because defence counsel incompetently permitted the prosecutor to adopt the course he did throughout the trial.
2 … because the prosecutor adduced evidence from the witness Joyce Zuidam that she and the Applicant had married to secure for the Applicant a visa.
3 … as a result of the aggregate impact of some or all of the errors relied upon under grounds 1A, 1B and 2.
At the conclusion of oral argument on 1 May 2025, the Court unanimously was of the view that leave to appeal should be granted; the appeal allowed; the convictions set aside; and a new trial ordered. We made orders to that effect accordingly and indicated that we would give reasons in due course. These are those reasons.

The evidence at trial

It is necessary to summarise the evidence in…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Singh v The King [2025] VSCA 95
Case: [2025] VSCA 95
Decision Date: 1 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v The King involved an appeal against a conviction for intentionally causing serious injury and handling stolen goods. The appellant, Mr. Singh, sought to overturn his convictions on the basis that the prosecution had improperly cross-examined their principal witness without obtaining the necessary leave from the court. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the defence counsel's acquiescence in the prosecution's conduct amounted to incompetence and, if so, whether this justified the granting of an application to set aside the convictions and order a new trial. The court had to consider the standard of competence required of defence counsel, the impact of the alleged error on the fairness of the trial, and the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defence counsel's failure to object to the improper cross-examination was indeed a significant error that fell below the standard of competence required. The court acknowledged that the prosecution's conduct was improper and that the defence counsel's acquiescence in this conduct meant that the appellant did not receive a fair trial. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to set aside the convictions and order a new trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and that legal practitioners adhere to the requisite standards of competence.

The court granted the application and allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial. The High Court directed that the case be remitted to a lower court for a new trial, ensuring that Mr. Singh would have the opportunity to be fairly tried on the charges.

Orders