Dheil v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 416

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA182/2019
[2019] NZCA 416

BETWEEN	HARJIT DHEIL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	26 June 2019
Court:	Stevens, Venning and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	J H M Eaton QC for Appellant S K Barr for Respondent
Judgment:	6 September 2019 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

The appellant, Harjit Dheil (Harjit), was convicted of blackmailing Amrit Singh (Amrit) by threatening that a woman would be paid to make a sexual complaint against him in order to get him to withdraw an employment complaint against Harjit’s company (Dheils Ltd). The conviction followed a jury trial before Judge Dawson in the District Court where Harjit’s co-defendant, Gurchetan Singh (Gurchetan), was acquitted.[1]
[1]First names are used to avoid confusion when some individuals share the same surname.
Harjit was sentenced by the Judge to 10 months’ home detention.[2]
[2]R v Dheil [2019] NZDC 8233 at [21].
He appeals both his conviction and sentence.

Events leading to the charges

The complainant, Amrit, had been an employee of Dheils Ltd which owned and operated the Glenfield Sports Bar. Harjit was a director of that company and ran the business with his brother, Hardesh Dheil.
In early 2014 Amrit’s partner called the Department of Labour to report her concerns about the number of hours Amrit was working, allegedly without pay. However, those concerns were not pursued because at that time his visa was restricted to Dheils Ltd and he feared losing his job.
In June 2014, Dheils Ltd sold the bar to Gaming and Sports Ltd of which Harjit’s co-defendant, Gurchetan, was a director, along with Pankaj Gupta and Roohi Gupta. Amrit continued to work at the bar. At that point, when he was no longer at risk of losing his job, Amrit initiated a formal complaint about his former employer, Dheils Ltd, with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA). Various steps were taken in that complaint, including unsuccessful mediation in August 2014, but it remained unresolved.
On the night of 14 August 2014, an incident occurred at the bar which involved an intoxicated female patron. Amrit says he offered to give her a ride home, but before they left he remembered he had left his uneaten dinner inside, so he went back into the bar and she followed him. He said she then became flirtatious and difficult to deal with, demanding that he give her alcohol, which he did, although he says it was essentially to appease her. At one point she pulled her shirt up, exposing her chest to him. She also took some bottles of pre-mixed drinks from the bar. Amrit says he eventually managed to usher her out at about 1.30 am. She became angry and aggressive and then struck him, at which point he called the police. He also took the bottles of alcohol off her.
Some of the interaction with…

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 Dheil v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dheil v The Queen [2019] NZCA 416
Case: [2019] NZCA 416
Decision Date: 6 September 2019 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harjit Dheil appeals against his conviction and sentence for blackmailing Amrit Singh by threatening to have a woman make a sexual complaint against him to force him to withdraw an employment complaint. The conviction followed a jury trial in the District Court where Harjit’s co-defendant, Gurchetan Singh, was acquitted. The appeal against conviction is advanced on the grounds that inadmissible hearsay evidence was admitted, the trial Judge failed to direct on this, the acquittal of Gurchetan meant the guilty verdict in relation to Harjit was both inconsistent and unreasonable. The appeal against sentence is advanced on the grounds that the sentence was both inappropriate and manifestly excessive and the Judge erred in taking prison as the appropriate starting point. The Court held that the recorded conversations were not inadmissible hearsay as both defendants were cross-examined and the distinction between a neutral communicator of a threat and someone who was a party to making a threat was a logical basis on which Gurchetan could be acquitted and Harjit convicted. The Court also held that the sentence was appropriate and well within range. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders