BETWEEN KISHOR CHANDRA SINGH Appellant AND THE KING Respondent - [2024] NZHC 966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2023-441-00019

[2024] NZHC 966

BETWEEN
KISHOR CHANDRA SINGH

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 13 February 2024

Appearances:

E J Forster for Appellant

C R Stuart and M Mitchell for Respondent

Judgment:

29 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Singh appeals the decision of the District Court, sentencing him to six and a half years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of one year and nine months on conviction for possession of firearms, ammunition and drugs for supply, receiving, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. 1

Background to the offending

[2]Mr Singh pleaded guilty to nine offences:

(a)possession of 21 Alfa Carbine rifles between 25 March 2022 and 28 May 2022 (representative);2

(b)possession of ammunition between 5 April 2022 and 28 May 2022 (representative);3

1      R v Singh [2023] NZDC 9359.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b). The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 45(1)(b). The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment.

SINGH v R [2024] NZHC 966 [29 April 2024]

(c)possession of three sawn-off firearms on 10 August 2022 (representative);4
(d)possession of ammunition on 10 August 2022 (representative);5

(e)possession of methamphetamine for supply on 10 August 2022;6 [7.3 grams]
(f)possession of cannabis plant for supply on 10 August 2022;7 [9 kgs]

(g)cultivation of cannabis plant between 28 June 2022 and 10 August 2022 (representative);8

(h)receiving a stolen Bobcat and trailer between 4 August 2022 and 10 August 2022;9 and
(i)attempting to pervert the course of justice on 19 July 2022.10

[3] The charges arose out of a police investigation involving electronic monitoring of unlawful firearms dealing in Hawke’s Bay. The unlawful firearms are Alfa Carbine rifles, which can be reduced to pistol-size, making them easier to use and conceal by persons without a firearms licence.

[4] The police investigation revealed that Mr Singh arranged for five people, including his daughter’s partner, to purchase firearms and ammunition for him from Gun City in Napier on 10 separate occasions. Mr Singh paid the purchasers $500 for each firearm they bought, in addition to the cost of the firearms and ammunition. The cost of the rifles and ammunition totalled $47,390.96. Mr Singh then cut down the rifles to pistol-size and sold them with the ammunition to unlicensed gang associates.

[5] The police identified text messages between Mr Singh and his daughter’s partner on 19 July 2022 warning that the police were asking the purchasing agents

4      Section 45(1)(b). The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 45(1)(b). The maximum penalty is four years’ imprisonment.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
7      Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(c). The maximum penalty is eight years’ imprisonment.
8      Section 9(1). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
9      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246(1) and 247(a). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
10     Section 117(e). The maximum penalty is seven years’…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BETWEEN KISHOR CHANDRA SINGH Appellant AND THE KING Responde... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 966
Decision Date: 29 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kishor Chandra Singh appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court, which was six and a half years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of one year and nine months. He was convicted on nine charges, including possession of firearms, ammunition and drugs for supply, receiving, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Singh's appeal focuses on several aspects of the sentencing process, including the starting point for the sentence, the imposition of cumulative sentences, and the appropriateness of the uplifts and reductions applied. The Court found that the starting point for the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the imposition of cumulative sentences for similar offences led to an overall starting point that was disproportionate to the gravity of the overall offending. Additionally, the Court found that the uplift for prior offending was wrongly included as part of the starting point and was punitive. The Court also found that the sentence for the drug offending was too high and that the uplift for prior offending should have been six months rather than one year. The Court set aside the original sentence and imposed a sentence of five years and ten months’ imprisonment, with no MPI.

Orders