Singh v The Queen - [2021] VSCA 345

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0110

GURPREET SINGH	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, EMERTON and SIFRIS JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 345
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 700 (Judge Hampel)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Recklessly causing serious injury – Whether acquittal of co-accused inconsistent with applicant’s conviction – Rational explanation for different verdicts – Separate charges of causing serious injury ‘in circumstances of gross violence’ – Late amendment of particulars of gross violence – Whether unfair prejudice – Applicant acquitted on gross violence charges – No unfairness – Jury question – Timing of disclosure – Whether procedural unfairness – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Recklessly causing serious injury – Plea of not guilty – Applicant sentenced to 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months – Whether manifestly excessive – Sentence within range – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C A Boston	Allan McMonnies Barristers and Solicitors
For the Respondent	Ms R L Harper	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
EMERTON JA
SIFRIS JA:

Introduction

The applicant and his co-accused, JR, were charged on indictment with intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence[1] (charge 1) and, in the alternative, recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence[2] (charge 2), intentionally causing serious injury[3] (charge 3) and recklessly causing serious injury[4] (charge 4). Both pleaded not guilty to each charge.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 15A.
[2]Ibid s 15B.
[3]Ibid s 16.
[4]Ibid s 17.

Following a trial in the County Court at Geelong, on 13 February 2020, the applicant was found guilty by a jury on charge 4. He was found not guilty on charges 1–3.

JR was found not guilty on each charge.

On 8 May 2020, the applicant was sentenced on charge 4 to six years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months.[5]
[5]The maximum penalty for charge 4 is 15 years’ imprisonment.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. For the reasons that follow leave to appeal is refused in relation to conviction. In relation to sentence we would grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.

Circumstances of the offending

Prior to the offending, the applicant and the complainant, LS, were well acquainted and had been friends. The pair attended college together in India and both came to Australia in 2007. The applicant and LS had lived together in the same house for many years.

LS had lent money to the applicant for the deposit on a house. The amount was contested, but it was common ground the applicant had only repaid a portion of the debt. In October 2016, LS allowed the applicant a further 12…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Singh v The Queen [2021] VSCA 345
Case: [2021] VSCA 345
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Singh, appealed against both his conviction and sentence for recklessly causing serious injury. Singh was charged alongside another individual, who was acquitted of the charges against him. Singh was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. The High Court was asked to consider whether the acquittal of the co-accused was inconsistent with Singh's conviction and if there was a rational explanation for the differing verdicts. Additionally, Singh appealed against his sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the differing verdicts and concluded that there was a rational basis for the acquittal of the co-accused while convicting Singh. The court held that separate charges of causing serious injury 'in circumstances of gross violence' did not necessitate a similar verdict for both defendants. Regarding the timing of the disclosure of the amended particulars, the court found no procedural unfairness. The jury had sufficient time to consider the evidence, and any prejudice was not significant enough to warrant a new trial. As for the sentence, the court held that while Singh’s plea of not guilty was a factor, the sentence was within the appropriate range and therefore not manifestly excessive.

Singh's appeal against his conviction was dismissed. The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The original sentence was affirmed as appropriate.

Orders