Legal Research
Cases
Singh v The Queen

Singh v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 161 11 June 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0133

SAMANDEEP SINGH	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KYROU and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 June 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 161
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 719 (Judge Tinney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Dangerous driving causing death – Appellant continued to drive truck while aware of deteriorating brakes – Collided with victim when unable to stop truck on descent – Mid-range seriousness – Guilty plea – Appellant suffered acute mental health decline following offending – Whether sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment manifestly excessive – Appellant’s severe psychiatric response showed profound remorse and engaged fifth and sixth Verdins principles, but did not constitute past or additional punishment – RLP v The Queen (2009) 213 A Crim R 461, Khoja v The Queen (2013) 66 MVR 116, applied – Appeal allowed – Appellant resentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Whether judge erred in not considering imposition of court secure treatment order – No error shown – Less restrictive means of treatment reasonably available – Appellant’s condition, albeit severe, could be managed by treatment available in prison – Sentencing Act 1991 s 94B(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P J Smallwood with	Paul Vale Criminal Law
Ms S G Wallace
For the Respondent	Ms D I Piekusis QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KYROU JA
McLEISH JA:

On 19 May 2020, the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death.[1] That charge carried a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 319(1).

On 26 May 2020, a judge of the County Court sentenced the appellant to a total effective term of 4 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.[2] The appellant sought leave to appeal on the following grounds:
[2]DPP v Singh [2020] VCC 719 (‘Sentencing Remarks’).

1. The sentence … was manifestly excessive in light of:
(a)       the appellant’s plea of guilty;
(b)       the principles in R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 268;
(c)       the assessment of the appellant’s culpability; and
(d)       sentencing practices for the offence.
2. The sentencing discretion miscarried because the sentencing judge erred by not ordering a report that was required before a Court Secure Treatment Order could be made, in circumstances where a Court Secure Treatment Order was the appropriate sentencing disposition if a sentence involving a community correction order was not to be imposed.

Leave to appeal was granted by Priest JA on 3 December 2020. For the reasons that follow, the appeal will be allowed.

Circumstances of offending

The offence took place on 12 January 2017 in Boronia Road, Watsonia. The appellant, an Indian citizen and Australian temporary resident, was 26 years old. He had been employed as a truck driver for a transport company since October 2016. He obtained a licence…

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 161
Case: [2021] VSCA 161
Decision Date: 11 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The appellant had continued to drive a truck while knowing the brakes were deteriorating and subsequently collided with the victim when unable to stop the truck on a descent. The appeal focused on the sentence of four years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant, which was considered potentially excessive. The appellant had pleaded guilty and experienced a significant mental health decline following the incident, which raised questions about the appropriate sentencing for his crime.

The central legal issue was whether the four-year imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant's severe psychiatric response to the incident was argued to demonstrate profound remorse, engaging the fifth and sixth Verdins principles. However, it was also contended that the appellant's mental health condition did not amount to past or additional punishment. The court examined relevant cases, including RLP v The Queen and Khoja v The Queen, to determine if the sentence was appropriate. It was determined that while the appellant's remorse was significant, the severity of his mental health condition did not justify a reduction in sentence.

The court found that the appellant's severe psychiatric response and profound remorse engaged the fifth and sixth Verdins principles, but did not amount to past or additional punishment. The court held that the four-year imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive given the appellant's severe psychiatric response, which demonstrated profound remorse. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to three years' imprisonment. The court also addressed the issue of whether the judge erred in not considering the imposition of a court secure treatment order. It was concluded that there was no error shown, as less restrictive means of treatment were reasonably available, and the appellant's condition could be managed by treatment available in prison.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's sentence of four years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to three years' imprisonment. The court did not find error in the judge's decision not to impose a court secure treatment order, as the appellant's condition could be managed within the prison system.

Orders