Legal Research
Cases
Jammu v The King

Jammu v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 2332 20 August 2024

Personal Consequences

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-115

[2024] NZHC 2332

BETWEEN
DILPREET JAMMU

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 23 July 2024 and 15 August 2024

Appearances:

S C Kim for Appellant on 23 July 2024, E Huda for Appellant on 15 August 2024

A L Hollingworth for Respondent

Judgment:

20 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

JAMMU v R [2024] NZHC 2332 [20 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] Dilpreet Jammu pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual violation by rape.1 On 8 April 2024 he was sentenced by Judge Crosbie to two years and three months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Jammu appeals his sentence. He says it was manifestly excessive.

The facts

[2] At the time of the offence, the victim was 19 and Mr Jammu was 27. They had met in November 2021 and began a relationship in February 2022. The relationship was intimate. On 10 May 2022, Mr Jammu texted the victim asking if she wanted to meet up with him. She agreed and drove to his address. Mr Jammu got into the front passenger seat of the victim’s car and she drove two minutes away and parked on the side of the road. Mr Jammu suggested that they should have sex. The victim agreed. I adopt the Judge’s summary of what then happened:

[11] She climbed into the passenger seat on top of him facing him. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees, she did similar. As soon as he put his penis inside her vagina, she told him she was in pain and asked him to stop. Again, she told him that it hurt. He replied: “You’ll be fine” and continued having sexual intercourse stopping 30 to 60 seconds later with full penetration and intercourse. Then at about 1.10 pm the next day he texted her stating, in an abbreviated form, but it is accepted these are the words: “Sorry about last night, I feel so bad after”. She replied: “Why?” He replied: “Cos you was in pain and I forced you”.

Victim impact statement

[3] The victim has suffered significantly. She feels as though she has lost herself and questions her worthiness. She says the assault has changed how she views relationships, other men, sex, and what trusting someone looks like. The victim fell pregnant and struggled with the decision whether to keep the baby. The decision to terminate the pregnancy adversely impacted her mental health and contributed to the trauma she experienced.3 Her victim impact statement outlines the financial consequences of the offending including lost income.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a). Maximum penalty: 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      R v Jammu [2024] NZDC 7605.
3      The Judge did not refer to the pregnancy and termination. Mr Huda says there was an issue as to the date of…

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 Jammu v The King

Details

AGLC: Jammu v The King [2024] NZHC 2332
Case: [2024] NZHC 2332
Decision Date: 20 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jammu v The King, the High Court of New Zealand assessed the appeal of Dilpreet Jammu against his sentence for sexual violation by rape. Jammu pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge Crosbie. The appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the appropriate starting point for the sentence, the deductions allowed for mitigating factors, and whether the sentence should be commuted to home detention.

The Court found that the starting point of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was too high, as Jammu’s offending was towards the lowest end of the spectrum. The Court determined that an appropriate starting point would be no more than three years’ imprisonment. Regarding deductions, the Court increased the deduction for emotional harm reparation to 12.5 per cent and for personal consequences to 10 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. The Court then considered whether this short-term sentence should be commuted to home detention.

The Court concluded that the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offending, remorse, and personal consequences, justified a sentence of home detention. This decision would allow Jammu to remain in a supportive family environment until a deportation decision is made and provide an opportunity for him to plan his return to India with the guidance and support of his siblings. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the original sentence was quashed, and a sentence of five months’ home detention was substituted.

Orders