Khangura v Police - [2018] NZHC 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV2017-404-000462 [2018] NZHC 203

BETWEEN
HARPREET SINGH KHANGURA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 13 & 16 February 2018

Counsel:

N Baier and H Redwood for Appellant (13 February 2018) A Prasad and H Redwood for Appellant (16 February 2018)

Judgment:

21 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 February 2018 at 2.15 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Public Defence Service, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

HARPREET SINGH KHANGURA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 203 [21 February 2018]

[1] Following a Judge alone trial in the District Court before Judge Simpson, the appellant, Mr Harpreet Singh Khangura, was convicted on one charge of indecent assault1 and one charge of burglary.2 He was subsequently sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Khangura now appeals against that sentence.

Factual background

[3] At the relevant time Mr Khangura lived in an apartment complex in central Auckland. The victim, the complainant, lived at the same apartment complex. She and Mr Khangura did not know each other.

[4] At around 8pm on 29 March 2017, Mr Khangura saw the complainant walking along Queen Street. He followed her to the apartment complex where they both live. He entered the building and got into the lift at the same time as the complainant. He exited the lift at the 8th floor where the complainant’s apartment is located.

[5] Mr Khangura followed the complainant to the door of her apartment where he told her, “You look so sexy.”

[6] The complainant ignored him and began unlocking the front door.

Mr Khangura grabbed the complainant’s arm with both hands and pulled her away from the door. The complainant managed to free herself and went inside her apartment.

[7] She then tried to shut the door, but could not because Mr Khangura was trying to push it open from the outside. A struggle over the door ensued for roughly one minute. The complainant called for help from a flatmate.

[8] During the struggle, Mr Khangura reached inside the door with one hand and squeezed the complainant’s buttock over her clothes.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 135; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 231; maximum penalty ten years’ imprisonment.

[9] The complainant abandoned the door and fled to her flatmate’s bedroom. Her flatmate emerged from an en-suite bathroom adjoining the bedroom. The complainant hid behind him. Mr Khangura entered the bedroom, saw the flatmate and then left the apartment.

[10] Mr Khangura returned to the apartment shortly afterwards to apologise. He knocked on the door which was answered by the complainant’s flatmate.
Mr Khangura apologised to him and explained that he had followed the complainant home because he thought she was attractive. He then left and returned to his apartment.

District Court Decision

[11] Judge Simpson adopted a starting…

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 Khangura v Police 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: [2018] NZHC 203
Decision Date: 21 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harpreet Singh Khangura appeals against his sentence for indecent assault and burglary. He was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment following his conviction. The appeal focuses on the excessiveness of the starting point of the sentence and the failure to credit his previous good character. The court examined the comparison of the current case with other cases of similar offending, the nature of the indecent assault, and the consideration of previous good character. The court found that the starting point was not manifestly excessive, however, the discount for remorse and age was insufficient. The court also found that the judge erred by not providing credit for the appellant's previous good character. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside. Khangura is sentenced to 10 months’ home detention with specified conditions and 100 hours community work.

The court found that the appellant's offending was both more and less serious than the cases referred to it. While the indecent assault was less serious, the forcefulness and protracted nature of the entry into the complainant's home placed the offending on a similar level of seriousness. The court found that the starting point adopted by the judge was at the upper end, but still within the range that was open to her. The court considered that a higher discount for remorse was warranted. The court found that the judge erred by not applying a discount to reflect the appellant's previous good character. The court found that a discount of seven-and-a-half percent is appropriate, which brings the sentence down to one of two years’ imprisonment. The court concluded that a sentence of home detention and community work would be sufficient to meet the circumstances of this case, taking into account the need for denunciation and deterrence as well as the need to take account of rehabilitation and to impose the least restrictive sentence possible.

Orders