Legal Research
Cases
Singh v The Queen

Singh v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 250 7 October 2014

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0056

AMARINDER SINGH

Appellant

THE QUEEN

Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 October 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 October 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 250
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Singh (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howard, 3 March 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Rape – Appellant sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of five years – Whether manifestly excessive – Objective gravity of offending did not warrant sentence of this length – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three years and three months – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D Ternovski	Michael J Gleeson & Associates
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA
PRIEST JA:

After a trial lasting some 10 days, the appellant was convicted, in the County Court at Melbourne, of one count of rape. He was sentenced, on 3 March 2014, to seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence. He relied initially upon two grounds, one of which was subsequently abandoned. During the course of oral argument before Redlich JA, a further two grounds of appeal emerged. His Honour granted the appellant leave to appeal on the following three grounds:

(2)The head sentence and the non-parole period are manifestly excessive.
(3)His Honour erred in treating the offending as a breach of trust of the employer/employee relationship.
(4)His Honour erred by wrongly treating context and relationship evidence (including the app[ellant]’s sexual interest in the victim) as a relevant matter adverse to the appellant.

Background

The appellant, was aged 32 at the time of his offending. He owned and operated a service station and car wash. In October 2011, he employed the victim as a customer service assistant. She had turned 18 two months earlier. This was her first job, having just completed her VCE studies.

The victim began working for the appellant in early November 2011. While explaining her work duties, the appellant told the victim that she should not treat him like a normal boss, and that she should tell him her ‘stories’. During the course of conversation, they spoke about alcohol, and the effect that it had upon her. She told the appellant that she went ‘crazy’ when intoxicated. He told her that he would have to take her out to see how ‘crazy’ she could get. At the time, the victim thought that the appellant was a ‘cool’ boss.

About a week later, the appellant invited her to attend a party with him two days later. It was agreed that she would not tell her mother or boyfriend (with whom she had been in a relationship for six months), and that she would instead tell them that she was attending…

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 [2014] VSCA 250
Case: [2014] VSCA 250
Decision Date: 7 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Singh, appealed against his sentence for rape, which had been determined by the trial judge to be seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. Singh contended that his sentence was manifestly excessive, arguing that the objective gravity of his offending did not warrant a sentence of this length. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the objective gravity of the crime of rape and the specific circumstances of Singh’s offending. It also evaluated the sentencing principles and whether they had been appropriately applied by the trial judge. The appeal hinged on the balance between the need for punishment and deterrence, and the proportionality of the sentence to the crime.

The court found that the objective gravity of the crime of rape, while severe, did not justify a sentence as lengthy as seven years. It held that the trial judge had failed to sufficiently consider the mitigating factors in Singh’s case, and as such, the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court re-sentenced Singh to five years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and three months. This decision reflected a more proportionate sentence that aligned with the objective gravity of the offending. The court concluded that no point of principle was raised by the appeal.

Orders