R v Dhillon - [2021] NZHC 1449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-6762

[2021] NZHC 1449

THE QUEEN

v

RAVJOT DHILLON

Hearing: 18 June 2021

Appearances:

R Tasman-Jones for Crown O Hinze for Defendant

Judgment:

18 June 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v DHILLON [2021] NZHC 1449 [18 June 2021]

[1] Mr Dhillon, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on a charge of assault with intent to injure.1 The maximum sentence for that charge is three years imprisonment.

[2] I have declined your application for an order under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that you be discharged without conviction. My reasons for that decision will be contained in a separate judgment to be issued later today.

[3] At trial you also faced two charges of being a party to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, but the jury found you not guilty on those charges. You are therefore to be sentenced only on the charge of assault with intent to injure.

Factual background

[4] The charges were laid as a result of an incident that occurred late in the evening of 3 July 2017. On that evening, a Mr Momi and two friends attended a party at a residential address in Mount Wellington. 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 things were said by the other group that embarrassed Mr Momi and his associates. The argument became sufficiently heated that an occupier of the address asked Mr Momi and his associates to leave. As they left, several eyewitnesses heard them saying words to the effect “We will return”, or “We will see you again”.

[5] 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.

[6] The physical altercation that then ensued resulted in the police being called by persons in the vicinity. A police patrol vehicle arrived just as the persons who had

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 193.

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. You were found in their number.

[7] The police found that three persons had been injured during the attack. One of these, Mr Hayer, had a fracture to his skull, a laceration to his head and bruises to his body. These injuries required hospitalisation and surgery. The second complainant, Mr Manpreet Singh, had…

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 1449
Case: [2021] NZHC 1449
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dhillon was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The defendant, Ravjot Dhillon, was found guilty of assault with intent to injure, and not guilty of two charges of being a party to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and the nature of the sentence to be imposed. The court considered the nature of the assault, which involved a group attack with weapons, and the relatively minor injuries sustained by the complainant. It was found that the defendant had a limited role in the assault and did not share the knowledge of other group members regarding the potential for serious harm.

Lang J decided that an appropriate starting point for sentencing was six months imprisonment, considering the defendant's limited involvement in the assault and the minor injuries sustained by the complainant. The court took into account the undue delay in bringing the charges to trial, resulting in a further reduction of one month from the starting point, bringing the total to five months imprisonment. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's good character, employment, and community work, and ultimately decided that a sentence of 100 hours of community work was appropriate, in line with the pre-sentence report's recommendation.

The final orders of the court were that Ravjot Dhillon be sentenced to 100 hours of community work for the charge of assault with intent to injure. The court also declined the defendant's application for an order under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that he be discharged without conviction.

Orders