R v Dutt - [2024] NZHC 3793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-002285

[2024] NZHC 3793

THE KING

v

ABHINAV SINGH DUTT

Hearing: 11 December 2024

Counsel:

T Jenkin for Crown

B Dawson for Defendant

Sentencing:

11 December 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

[1] Mr Dutt I have to sentence you today after you pleaded guilty to seven representative charges of receiving items that were valued over $1,000.1

[2] You accepted a sentence indication that Radich J gave you back in September. Justice Radich indicated that the starting point for your sentence would be two years and five months’ imprisonment, that you would get a reduction of 25 per cent for pleading guilty, a 10 per cent reduction for your lack of previous convictions, and there was the possibility of additional reductions. Applying the reductions that Radich J had indicated, he said that the end sentence was 18 months’ imprisonment, there was the potential of a non-custodial sentence, and the Crown were not opposing that.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246, 247(a) and 66(1), maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v DUTT (SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 3793 [11 December 2024]

[3] Some of the other co-offenders have already been sentenced. Mr Soon was sentenced by Radich J. His sentence was three years and 10 months’ imprisonment. I sentenced two other people yesterday. I sentenced Mr Perera to three months’ community detention and 50 hours’ community work, and I declined his application to be discharged without conviction. He was in a similar position to you in terms of the role he played in this offending, but his culpability was slightly less than yours. Ms Toki, who was one of the most significant suppliers of stolen property to Mr Soon was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work.

[4] It is usual for the Judge who has given the sentence indication to carry on to do the sentencing, but that is not inevitable. Although Radich J’s indication is not binding on me, I am conducting your sentencing on the basis that I agree with the sentence and reductions that Radich J indicated to you, so I am not departing from them.

[5] The only thing I need to decide today is what further reductions can be made, and what the end sentence should be. First, I need to give a brief summary of the offending.

The offending

[6] These charges came out of a Police operation in 2022 that targeted a large-scale receiving operation in Wellington run by Mr Soon. People would contact him and offer him stolen goods for sale. They were people who had either stolen these goods or had themselves received them from other people. Mr Soon would also give people lists of goods he wanted to have, on the basis that property would be stolen or shoplifted to order. Mr Soon had connections throughout Wellington. The core of his network included people like yourself; tenants at…

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 Dutt

Details

AGLC: R v Dutt [2024] NZHC 3793
Case: [2024] NZHC 3793
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the defendant, Abhinav Singh Dutt, faced sentencing following a guilty plea to multiple charges of receiving stolen items valued over $1,000. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence for Dutt after considering the Crown's and defense's submissions, as well as the broader context of the crime and Dutt's involvement. The legal issues primarily revolved around determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, applying the relevant reductions for factors such as Dutt's guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, and demonstrated remorse, and deciding on the most suitable form of sentence that aligns with the purposes of sentencing.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the severity and commercial nature of the crime, the value of the stolen goods linked to Dutt's actions, and his role within the larger operation. The starting point for the sentence was set at two years and five months, following a sentence indication by Justice Radich. The court then applied reductions for Dutt's guilty plea and good character, considering his engagement in restorative justice and genuine expressions of remorse. The court acknowledged Dutt's significant participation in the operation but noted his role was less proactive than other co-offenders. The final sentence of six months of community detention was chosen to reflect the principles of accountability and deterrence while considering the impracticality of additional community work due to Dutt's employment as an electrician.

Orders