Legal Research
Cases
Chahil v R

Chahil v R

Case [2010] NZCA 244 10 June 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA534/2009
CA542/2009
CA583/2009
CA728/2009
[2010] NZCA 244
BETWEENRUPINDER SINGH CHAHIL, PARVINDER SINGH, GURPREET SINGH AND CHARANJIT SINGH

Appellants

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:6 May 2010

Court:Chambers, Potter and Miller JJ
Counsel:J Haigh QC for Rupinder Singh Chahil

W Lawson for Parvinder Singh
P F Wicks for Gurpreet Singh
S J Lance for Charanjit Singh
M A Woolford for Crown

Judgment:10 June 2010 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

CA534/2009 (RUPINDER SINGH CHAHIL)
A The appeal against conviction is allowed but only to the extent that the conviction for aggravated wounding is quashed.

B            No order is made for retrial on the aggravated wounding charge.
C            The appeal against sentence is allowed.
DIn place of the sentences of two years’ imprisonment on the kidnapping charges, we impose the following sentences:
(a)      Mr Chahil must pay reparation of $5,000 to Bashan Singh in one lump sum immediately.
(b)     Eighteen months’ imprisonment on each of the kidnapping charges, those terms to be concurrent.

E Mr Chahil must present himself to the Criminal Desk at the Auckland High Court by no later than noon on 14 June 2010 to commence his sentence of imprisonment.

CA542/2009 (PARVINDER SINGH)
F The appeal against conviction is allowed but only to the extent that the conviction for aggravated wounding is quashed.

G           No order is made for retrial on the aggravated wounding charge.
H           The appeal against sentence is allowed.
I             The sentences of imprisonment imposed on the kidnapping charges are quashed.
JOn the kidnapping charges, Parvinder Singh is sentenced to home detention for six months, the sentences to be concurrent. The sentence is subject to the following conditions:
(a)      Parvinder Singh must be at 23 Tiverton Road, New Windsor, Auckland at noon on 11 June 2010 to start his sentence of home detention.
(b)He must reside at 23 Tiverton Road, New Windsor, Auckland or at an address approved by the Home Detention Probation Officer.
(c)He must not engage or continue to engage in any employment or occupation in which the Home Detention Probation Officer has directed him not to engage or continue to engage.
(d)     He must not associate directly or indirectly with any persons with whom the Home Detention Probation Officer has directed him not to associate.
(e)      He must undertake counselling or treatment or a programme if directed by the Home Detention Probation Officer.

CA583/2009 (GURPREET SINGH)
K            The appeal is dismissed.
CA728/2009 (CHARANJIT SINGH)
L             The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Miller J)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
[1]

The appeals
[6]
The statement of Charanjit Singh  [7]
Inconsistent and unreasonable verdicts  [23]
The aggravated wounding charge  [33]
The sentence appeals  [40]
Decision  [58]
Introduction
[1]        The appellants were convicted after trial of kidnapping two men and causing grievous bodily harm to one of them with intent to facilitate the commission of a crime. These appeals challenge both the convictions and the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon several of the appellants.
[2]…

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 Chahil v R

Details

AGLC: Chahil v R [2010] NZCA 244
Case: [2010] NZCA 244
Decision Date: 10 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants were convicted after trial of kidnapping two men and causing grievous bodily harm to one of them with intent to facilitate the commission of a crime. These appeals challenge both the convictions and the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon several of the appellants. The Crown case was that the two complainants, Akbar Singh and Bashan Singh, were employed as chefs at a restaurant in Whangaparaoa owned by the appellant Rupinder Singh Chahil. They decided to take up employment at another local restaurant, and resigned at approximately 8.34pm on Sunday 10 June 2007. They returned to the home, supplied by Rupinder Singh Chahil, that they shared at Whangaparaoa. At about 11.30pm three vehicles arrived at the home unannounced, carrying at least six to eight people, including the four appellants. Rupinder Singh Chahil issued orders to the others. The Crown alleged that Akbar Singh went to the front door where he was slapped repeatedly by Parvinder Singh, and was then detained. Bashan Singh was next confronted by Parvinder Singh and others in his upstairs bedroom. He went to the balcony and made a phone call, asking another person to call the police. He then decided to climb over the balcony to get away. Seeing this, Rupinder Singh Chahil ordered Parvinder Singh and Rajvinder Singh to stop him. Rajvinder Singh seized his hand, trying to pull him up, but then released him. Because his grip on the rail had been broken, Bashan Singh fell, breaking both ankles. Parvinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, and Charanjit Singh ran outside and surrounded him, and some of the offenders, including Charinjit Singh and Parvinder Singh, punched and kicked him. He was carried back inside the address and searched by Rupinder Singh Chahil, who took his cellphone. The Crown alleged that Rupinder Singh Chahil demanded the name of the future employer of the two men. He threatened Akbar Singh, holding a pistol to his head. Fearing for his life, Akbar Singh phoned the future employer and told him to come to the address. That person did so, but fled when some of the group went out to his car to seize him. Akbar Singh and Bashan Singh were then placed in two separate cars and taken away. Akbar Singh was driven to Charanjit Singh’s address, placed in a room, and told not to leave until 10am the following morning. He was given food and drink. He was not guarded. At about 6.30am he left and notified the police. Bashan Singh was taken to Parvinder Singh’s home address in Botany Downs and there held captive before being taken to Middlemore Hospital at 3.20am. There Rupinder Singh Chahil again confronted him, demanding to know the name of the new employer, before leaving. Parvinder Singh remained at the hospital with Bashan Singh while his injuries were attended to. Rajvinder Singh has never been apprehended. The other appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows: Appellant Charge Sentence Rupinder Singh Chahil Kidnapping (x2): Crimes Act 1961 s 209(b) Aggravated wounding of Bashan Singh: Crimes Act s 191(1)(a) Two years imprisonment Parvinder Singh Kidnapping (x2) Aggravated wounding of Bashan Singh 12 months imprisonment Charanjit Singh Kidnapping (x2) Four months home detention Gurpreet Singh Kidnapping (x2) Four months home detention Gurpreet Singh and Charanjit Singh were acquitted of the aggravated wounding of Bashan Singh. All appellants were acquitted on two further charges, one of committing a crime (kidnapping) using a firearm and the other of assaulting Akbar Singh with intent to facilitate the commission of an offence. The appeals were dismissed except for the conviction appeals of Rupinder Singh Chahil and Parvinder Singh against conviction for aggravated wounding. Those convictions were quashed and there will be no order for retrial. All conviction appeals were otherwise dismissed. The sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on Rupinder Singh Chahil was quashed and a sentence of 18 months imprisonment substituted on each of the kidnapping charges, to be served concurrently. Rupinder Singh Chahil must report to the Criminal Desk at the High Court at Auckland to commence serving his sentence no later than noon on 14 June 2010 to begin serving his sentence. Rupinder Singh Chahil is to pay reparation of $5,000 to Bashan Singh immediately. The sentence of 12 months imprisonment imposed on Rupinder Singh was quashed and a sentence of 6 months home detention substituted on each of the kidnapping charges, the sentences to be concurrent. The conditions of the home detention sentence are recorded in order J of the Court’s formal orders.

Orders