Singh v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 317

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0331

HARJOT HUNDAL SINGH
	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NEAVE and HANSEN JJA and BEACH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 October 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 317
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Singh (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harbison, 25 August 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Stranger rape (11 years’ imprisonment) – Abduction for the purposes of sexual penetration (4 years’ imprisonment) – Intentionally cause injury (1 year imprisonment) – 2 years of abduction sentence cumulated on rape sentence – Total effective sentence 13 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 9 years not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellant	Mr P Higham	Andrew George
For the respondent	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA
HANSEN JA
BEACH AJA:

Introduction

1. On 23 April 2010, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts:  one of abduction for the purposes of sexual penetration, one of intentionally causing injury and one of rape.  A plea was heard on 5 August 2010.  On 25 August 2010, her Honour Judge Harbison sentenced the appellant to four years’ imprisonment on the count of abduction for the purposes of sexual penetration, one year’s imprisonment on the count of intentionally causing injury and 11 years’ imprisonment on the count of rape.  Her Honour ordered two years of the four years of the sentence for abduction for the purposes of sexual penetration to be served cumulatively with the sentence for rape, making a total effective sentence of 13 years, and directed that the appellant serve a non-parole period of nine years.

1. The appellant appeals[1] against the sentence he received.  The grounds of the appeal are:

(1)The learned judge fell into sentencing error by ordering the ‘significant degree of cumulation’ as reflected in the sentence.

(2)The total effective sentence failed to give sufficient credit for the guilty plea.

(3)The total effective sentence failed to give sufficient regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances and the manner in which he would serve any term of imprisonment.

(4)[This ground was not pursued at the hearing.]

(5)The sentence passed was in all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, manifestly excessive or, alternatively fell into error.

[1]Pursuant to leave granted on 12 May 2011.

Circumstances of the offending

1. The victim is a Sikh from the province of Punjab, in India.  She was studying in Australia.  On 18 June 2009, she was walking through Springvale at approximately 11.30 pm, talking on her mobile phone.  She was on her way home from work.  As she was walking, she observed a stranger standing next to a van, facing her direction.  This man was the appellant, also a Sikh from Punjab.  The victim continued to walk in the appellant’s direction.

1. The appellant approached her and grabbed her from behind, putting his hand over her mouth.  With his free…