R v Dhillon - [2021] NZHC 1454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-6762

[2021] NZHC 1454

THE QUEEN

v

RAVJOT DHILLON

Hearing: 18 June 2021

Appearances:

J B Barry and R Tasman-Jones for Crown M P Hislop for Defendant

Judgment:

18 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for discharge under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 June 2021 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v DHILLON [2021] NZHC 1454 [18 June 2021]

[1] Mr Dhillon was found guilty by a jury on a charge of assault with intent to injure. At sentencing he applied for an order under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 discharging him without conviction. I declined to grant the application and entered a conviction. After hearing submissions from counsel I sentenced Mr Dhillon to 100 hours community work. I now give my reasons for declining his application for discharge without conviction.

The offending

[2] The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred late in the evening of 3 July 2017. On that evening Mr Dhillon’s co-defendant Mr Jatinder Momi and two friends attended a party at a residential address in Mount Wellington. Mr Dhillon was not at the party. During the evening an argument arose between members of Mr Momi’s group and a group of other persons who were also present at the address. It is not known what prompted the argument, but from comments Mr Momi made subsequently it appears that something was said by the opposing group that embarrassed him and his associates. The argument became sufficiently heated that an occupier of the address asked Mr Momi’s group to leave. As they left, several eyewitnesses heard words being said to the effect “We will return”, or “We will see you again”.

[3] Approximately one and a half hours later the persons with whom Mr Momi and his associates had been arguing left the address to get some food. As they did so, two cars drove into the street. Eight to ten persons got out of the cars, several of whom were carrying weapons. These persons immediately began attacking the persons who had been leaving the address.

[4] The ensuing physical altercation resulted in the police being called by persons in the vicinity. A police patrol vehicle arrived just as the persons who had carried out the attack were endeavouring to leave the scene in their vehicles. The police immediately blocked the street and prevented the attackers from leaving. Mr Dhillon was one of those persons. He was found in bare feet and had sustained a cut to his foot. The police found broken glass on the ground in the area where the attack had taken place.

[5] Three persons were injured during the attack. One of these had a fracture to his skull, a laceration to his head…

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 R v Dhillon

Details

AGLC: R v Dhillon [2021] NZHC 1454
Case: [2021] NZHC 1454
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Dhillon was heard by Lang J on 18 June 2021. Mr Dhillon was convicted of assault with intent to injure, stemming from an incident that took place on 3 July 2017. The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant Mr Dhillon a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Lang J ultimately declined to grant the application and entered a conviction, sentencing Mr Dhillon to 100 hours of community work.

Lang J began by examining the gravity of the offending. Mr Dhillon was found guilty of assaulting one of the complainants with intent to injure. However, the court assessed the overall gravity of the offending as low, considering factors such as Mr Dhillon's lack of previous convictions and the relatively minor nature of the assault itself. The court further noted that Mr Dhillon had not caused any injury to the complainant himself.

The court then turned to the consequences of a conviction. Mr Dhillon expressed concern that a conviction may affect his current and future employment as a truck driver. However, the court found that the likely consequences of a conviction were low to very low, given Mr Dhillon's stable employment history and the relatively minor nature of the offending. Furthermore, the court noted that the present offending did not involve allegations of dishonesty or any other attribute that might be inherently incompatible with Mr Dhillon's occupation as a courier driver.

In light of the low gravity of the offending and the relatively low consequences of a conviction, Lang J dismissed the application for discharge without conviction. The court entered a conviction and sentenced Mr Dhillon to 100 hours of community work.

Orders