R v Dhillon - [2018] NZHC 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-8415

[2018] NZHC 820

THE QUEEN

v

GANGANDEEP SINGH DHILLON

Hearing: 27 April 2018

Appearances:

G R Kayes and H Benson-Pope for Crown J C Harder for Defendant

Judgment:

27 April 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v DHILLON [2018] NZHC 820 [27 APRIL 2018]

[1] Mr Dhillon, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to four charges of aggravated robbery, one charge of robbery and one charge of burglary. The charges of aggravated robbery carry maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment, whilst the remaining charges carry maximum sentences of ten years imprisonment.

Background

[2] You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication on 20 March 2018.1 In the course of the indication I set out in full the factual circumstances giving rise to the charges. I see no need to repeat that factual summary for present purposes. My sentence indication will be annexed to my sentencing remarks and will form part of it. In short, however, the charges relate to a series of events that occurred between June and July 2017. Each of them involved you either carrying out a robbery or burglary yourself, or providing others with information to enable them to carry out aggravated robberies. You attended yourself at one of the aggravated robberies when a weapon was produced by your co-defendant, Mr Nuku. The robberies resulted in considerable trauma to the victims. They also resulted in a considerable quantity of property being stolen. You were the beneficiary of property stolen in some of the robberies.

[3] I selected a starting point of 12 years six months imprisonment on all charges. I did that after undertaking an analysis of other cases I considered to have some similarity to yours. I then allowed a discount of three years two months, or approximately 25 per cent, to reflect your guilty pleas. I indicated that it might be possible for me to reduce the end sentence further depending on material produced at sentencing including information contained in the pre-sentence report.

[4] I now have the benefit of a pre-sentence report, together with submissions from your counsel. The pre-sentence report reveals that you began offending after you became involved with associates who were consuming drugs. They persuaded you to consume drugs as well. This led you to providing your associates with details of persons whom you knew who could be the target of robberies. Nothing in the pre- sentence report or your counsel’s submissions causes me to change my mind in any way regarding the overall culpability of your offending.

1 R v Dhillon [2018] NZHC 471.

Mitigating factors

[5] Your counsel submits that I should reduce the sentence further to reflect two factors. The first of these is the remorse you have shown and rehabilitative efforts you have undertaken whilst in prison. The remorse comes from comments you have made to the person who prepared the pre-sentence report. These demonstrate some…

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 [2018] NZHC 820
Case: [2018] NZHC 820
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gangandeep Singh Dhillon was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand on four charges of aggravated robbery, one charge of robbery, and one charge of burglary. The charges stemmed from a series of events that occurred between June and July 2017, which involved Dhillon either participating in or facilitating robberies and burglaries that caused significant trauma to the victims and resulted in the theft of a substantial quantity of property. The court set a starting point of 12 years and 6 months imprisonment on all charges, then applied a discount of 3 years and 2 months for Dhillon's guilty pleas. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Dhillon's remorse and rehabilitative efforts while in prison, and his willingness to attend a restorative justice conference with his victims, although this was not possible. Ultimately, the court determined an end sentence of 8 years and 11 months imprisonment, with a minimum term of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment on each charge of aggravated robbery.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering any aggravating or mitigating factors, and deciding whether a minimum term of imprisonment was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offending. The court found that the starting point should reflect the totality of the offending, which involved Dhillon being the instigator and closely associated with the robberies and burglary. The court also determined that a minimum term of imprisonment was necessary to reflect the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and holding Dhillon accountable, but reduced the term to reflect his impending deportation after serving his sentence.

Orders