R v Sandhu - [2025] NZHC 565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-000619

[2025] NZHC 565

THE KING

v

HARDEEP SINGH SANDHU

Hearing: 19 March 2025

Counsel:

NE Walker for Crown

GNE Bradford for Defendant

Judgment:

19 March 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. GNE Bradford, Auckland.

R v SANDHU [2025] NZHC 565 [19 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] Hardeep Sandhu, you are for sentence on one charge of injuring with intent to injure.1 You are the last defendant to be sentenced in relation to an attack upon Harnek Singh. Your circumstances differ from your co-defendants in relation to the attack, but as I shall explain, you played an important role in facilitating that attack.

Facts

[2] The facts are these. You were a devotee of Gurinderpal Brar, who ran Sikh temples in Auckland and elsewhere. Mr Brar’s views about Sikhism differed from Mr Singh’s. Mr Brar resolved to kill Mr Singh. You were part of that plot save you believed Mr Singh was to be beaten rather than killed. But, you understood Mr Singh would be followed, rammed off the road, then attacked.

[3] On 21 December 2020, you exchanged messages with a co-defendant. You discussed planting a tracking device on Mr Singh’s car. The next day you researched the location of his home using Google Maps and Streetview. On 23 December 2020, you received instructions from Mr Brar in relation to the attack. Your role was to follow Mr Singh and ram his car so the attack could begin.

[4] That evening, Mr Singh went to the Sikh temple in Papatoetoe. When he left for his home, three co-defendants followed him in a black car. You also followed him in a white van. You maintained contact with your co-defendants in the other vehicle. When Mr Singh pulled into the driveway of his home, you forcefully rammed the van into his car. This caused Mr Singh’s car to stop at the beginning of his driveway. Your co-defendants in the other car got out and began their attack. They had weapons. You fled the scene and did not further participate.

[5] Mr Singh suffered a dreadful attack. He was severely injured and very nearly died. But, as I explained at the beginning, you did not appreciate the attack was intended to kill him. Nor were you aware your co-defendants had weapons. It is, however, important to repeat the obvious: you knew Mr Singh was to be attacked by

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 189(2) and 66; maximum penalty, five years’ imprisonment.

your co-defendants for his contrary religious views. You facilitated that attack in the way I have explained. It follows you committed the crime of injuring with intent to injure by being a party to that crime.

Aggravating factors

[6] It is common ground your offending is made more serious because it was premeditated; motivated by religious fanaticism; and because it involved multiple assailants. Relatedly, you knew appreciable violence would be…

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 Sandhu

Details

AGLC: R v Sandhu [2025] NZHC 565
Case: [2025] NZHC 565
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hardeep Singh Sandhu was sentenced for injuring with intent to injure, in relation to an attack on Harnek Singh. Sandhu was part of a plot to attack Singh, motivated by differing religious views. Sandhu's role was to ram Singh's car to facilitate the attack by his co-defendants. The attack was severe, though Sandhu did not anticipate it would be life-threatening. The court found Sandhu's involvement premeditated, religiously motivated, and involving multiple assailants, with Sandhu knowing appreciable violence would be administered. The court accepted a starting point of three and a half years' imprisonment and applied various mitigating factors, including Sandhu's background, influence of a spiritual leader, good character, guilty plea, and time spent on electronically monitored bail. These factors resulted in a sentence of 11 months' imprisonment, with credit for the time Sandhu had already served on bail.

The court considered Sandhu's argument for a discharge without conviction due to the potential consequences of a conviction, including deportation and separation from his pregnant wife. However, the court found no gross disproportionality between the consequences and the gravity of the offence. The court concluded that the serious nature of the offending, despite mitigating factors, warranted an imprisonment sentence to mark the seriousness of the crime. Sandhu's sentence of 11 months' imprisonment was imposed, with credit for the time already served on bail. His application for a discharge without conviction was dismissed.

Orders