Momi v The The Queen - [2022] NZCA 199

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA392/2021
[2022] NZCA 199

BETWEEN	JATINDER SINGH MOMI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA335/2021
BETWEEN	AMANDEEP SINGH Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA396/2021
BETWEEN	RAVJOT SINGH DHILLON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	29 March 2022
Court:	Gilbert, Woolford and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield QC and J Oliver-Hood for Appellant in CA392/2021 JEL Carruthers for Appellant in CA335/2021 O R Hintze for Appellant in CA396/2021 HDL Steele for Respondent
Judgment:	20 May 2022 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMr Momi’s appeal against conviction in CA392/2021 is dismissed.
BMr Momi’s appeal against sentence in CA392/2021 is dismissed.
CMr Singh’s appeal against conviction in CA335/2021 is dismissed.
DMr Dhillon’s application to adduce further evidence in CA396/2021 is granted.
EMr Dhillon’s appeal against the refusal to discharge him without conviction in CA396/2021 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Following a trial by jury in the High Court at Auckland, Messrs Momi and Singh were each found guilty of:
(a)wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Hardeep Hayer (Mr Hayer) (charge 1);
(b)wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Manpreet Singh (Mr Manpreet Singh) (charge 2); and
(c)assault with intent to injure Gursharan Singh (Mr Gursharan Singh) (charge 3).
Mr Dhillon was found guilty on charge 3.
Lang J sentenced Mr Momi to five years and nine months’ imprisonment and Mr Amandeep Singh to four years and nine months’ imprisonment.[1] The Judge declined Mr Dhillon’s application to be discharged without conviction and sentenced him to 100 hours’ community work.[2]
[1]R v Momi [2021] NZHC 1384 [Sentencing judgment].
[2]R v Dhillon [2021] NZHC 1454 [Dhillon judgment].
Mr Momi appeals against his conviction on all three charges, contending the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable.
In the event his conviction appeal is dismissed, Mr Momi appeals against his sentence arguing that the starting point of eight years, six months’ imprisonment which the Judge adopted was manifestly excessive. He contends the starting point ought to have been the same as for Mr Amandeep Singh, namely seven years’ imprisonment. He observes that the Crown did not seek to differentiate between him and Mr Amandeep Singh at sentencing.
Mr Amandeep Singh also appeals against his conviction on all three charges. He contends that a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of what the prosecutor said to the jury in his closing address about identification evidence which was signalled in opening, but not given in evidence.
Mr Dhillon accepts the jury’s verdict but appeals against the Judge’s refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction. He accepts the decision is unimpeachable on the basis of the information that was before the Judge. However, he applies to adduce further evidence in support of his appeal which he says demonstrates that the consequences of a conviction are significantly more serious than the Judge understood. The Crown does not oppose the introduction of this further…

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 Momi v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: Momi v The The Queen [2022] NZCA 199
Case: [2022] NZCA 199
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns three defendants who were convicted of various charges following a violent altercation. Mr Momi appeals against his conviction on all three charges, contending the jury's verdicts were unreasonable. In the event his conviction appeal is dismissed, Mr Momi appeals against his sentence arguing that the starting point of eight years, six months' imprisonment which the Judge adopted was manifestly excessive. He contends the starting point ought to have been the same as for Mr Amandeep Singh, namely seven years' imprisonment. Mr Amandeep Singh also appeals against his conviction on all three charges. He contends that a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of what the prosecutor said to the jury in his closing address about identification evidence which was signalled in opening, but not given in evidence. Mr Dhillon accepts the jury's verdict but appeals against the Judge's refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction. He accepts the decision is unimpeachable on the basis of the information that was before the Judge. However, he applies to adduce further evidence in support of his appeal which he says demonstrates that the consequences of a conviction are significantly more serious than the Judge understood. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Momi's appeal against his conviction on all three charges and his appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Singh's appeal against conviction. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Dhillon's appeal against the Judge's refusal to discharge him without conviction. The Court of Appeal granted Mr Dhillon's application to adduce further evidence in support of his appeal against the Judge's refusal to discharge him without conviction.

Orders