R v Goel

Case [2023] NZHC 585 22 March 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

REDACTED VERSION OF JUDGMENT

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011: SEE PARAGRAPH [163].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-018-632

[2023] NZHC 585

THE KING

v

VIVEK GOEL AMAR SINGH

Hearing: 22 March 2023

Appearances:

A M Toohey for Crown

J R Rapley KC and D M Kirby for Defendant Goel C J Lange for Defendant Singh

Sentencing:

22 March 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Goel and Mr Singh, you may remain seated while I explain my sentences to you. At the end I will I ask you to stand.

[2] These sentencing remarks will be transcribed and a copy of them will be made available later today.

R v GOEL [2023] NZHC 585 [22 March 2023]

[3] Mr Goel and Mr Singh, you appear for sentence today having each been found guilty of 14 charges of corruption and bribery of an official pursuant to s 105 of the Crimes Act 1961. I will be calling that “the Act”, I will be referring to other Acts as well. A jury found you, Mr Singh, guilty of paying bribes to Mr Goel. The jury found you, Mr Goel, guilty of receiving those bribes from Mr Singh.

[4] Additionally, you Mr Goel were found guilty of four charges of corrupt use of official information under s 105A of the Act and two charges of obtaining by deception under s 240 of the Act.

[5] You, Mr Singh, were additionally found guilty of one charge of obtaining by deception under s 240 of the Act.

[6] In your case, Mr Singh, you were also found guilty of nine charges of obstructing a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation pursuant to s 45 Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 — that is, that you gave false or misleading information to the SFO when required by the SFO to provide information.

[7] As you will be aware, the maximum penalty for each of the Crimes Act charges is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty in relation to the SFO Act charges is 12 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $15,000.

[8] In these sentencing remarks, I will first summarise the factual background involved in your offending. Some factual matters are clear from the jury’s verdicts. Other matters I refer to reflect my conclusion of the factual background, putting myself effectively in the place of a 13th juror at your trial. Those present in court today and the wider public have a right to know the basis upon which I am sentencing you both today.

[9] After addressing these matters, I will come to the sentencing purposes and principles. I will then consider your sentence, Mr Goel, and then Mr Singh’s.

Background to the charges

Introduction

[10] The corruption and dishonesty offending occurred within an 18-month period between August 2015 and February 2017. Mr Singh’s obstruction offences occurred during the…

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 Goel

Details

AGLC: R v Goel [2023] NZHC 585
Case: [2023] NZHC 585
Decision Date: 22 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Osborne J sentenced Goel and Singh for their respective convictions of corruption and bribery, involving the Westland District Council. Goel was found guilty of 14 charges of corruption and bribery, four charges of corrupt use of official information, and two charges of obtaining by deception. Singh was found guilty of the same charges as Goel, except for the corrupt use of official information and obtaining by deception charges, and was additionally convicted of nine charges of obstructing a Serious Fraud Office investigation. Goel and Singh were sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment and three years and seven months’ imprisonment, respectively. The court considered the aggravating factors of the offending, including the significant harm caused to the Council and the community, the serious breach of trust, and the sophisticated arrangements to conceal the bribery. The court also took into account the personal mitigating factors for both defendants, such as their previous good character and the impact of imprisonment on their families.

Orders