R v Sangha - [2016] NZHC 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-042-001878 [2016] NZHC 37

THE QUEEN

v

JASWINDER SINGH SANGHA KULWANT SINGH

Hearing 29 January 2016

Counsel:

M A O’Donoghue and E J Riddell for Crown
R M Mansfield for J S Sangha
S J Zindel and S M Barclay for K Singh

Sentence:

29 January 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] Kulwant Singh and Jaswinder Singh Sangha, I now have to sentence you both on your 11 convictions for your parts in supplying false information to a refugee status officer. I have to do so on a view of the facts that is consistent with the jury’s verdicts at the end of your trial. Having reflected carefully on all the evidence we heard during the trial, I have a clear view on the factual circumstances that I consider to be relevant to assessing the seriousness of your offending by each of you.

[2] Mr Singh Sangha, I am satisfied that you became involved at the outset of the arrangements to bring the workers from the Punjab to New Zealand, at least in material part because of the prospects for your family to make money from it. With your brothers, Satnam and Jetpal, I am satisfied that you charged the Punjabi
workers substantial amounts of money to get them contracts of employment and

R v SANGHA AND SINGH [2016] NZHC 37 [29 January 2016]

New Zealand work visas. I have reflected on your evidence that you were involved only to help friends and extended family take up an opportunity to come to New Zealand, and that you would never charge for such arrangements. Mr Mansfield has urged that view on me in his present submissions. He has argued that claims of payment of money in India were so closely linked to the claims by the workers that they were deceived about the length of the visas that rejection of the latter proposition by the jury must be taken also to mean rejection of the former. I cannot accept that, and I do accept the essential thrust of many of the complainants that they paid you or members of your immediate family substantial sums in India.

[3] In my view, the jury’s verdicts acquitting you of the people-smuggling charges were correct because the Crown was unable to prove that the workers were deceived into coming to New Zealand by promises that you would get them one and a half to two year work visas. I find the reality to be that many Sikhs of working age in the Punjab are so determined, if not desperate, to obtain lawful entry into western countries that they would pay money and travel, whatever the length of an initial visa was that they had been promised. It follows that the claimed assurances of one and a half to two year work visas were not a material inducement. So, just because you were found not guilty of the people-smuggling charges does not mean that I have…

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 Sangha

Details

AGLC: R v Sangha [2016] NZHC 37
Case: [2016] NZHC 37
Decision Date: 29 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kulwant Singh and Jaswinder Singh Sangha were convicted of 11 charges related to supplying false information to a refugee status officer. The court had to determine appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, the nature of their offending, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The court found that Kulwant Singh was more culpable, as he had initiated the scheme and knew the claims for refugee status were false. Jaswinder Singh Sangha was found to be a party to Kulwant Singh's offending. The court set starting points of two and a half years for Kulwant Singh and two years for Jaswinder Singh Sangha, considering various cases of immigration fraud as comparisons. After considering mitigating factors such as good character and family responsibilities, the court imposed a sentence of two years and one month's imprisonment for Kulwant Singh and a sentence of 10 months' home detention and 300 hours' community work for Jaswinder Singh Sangha. The court acknowledged that the sentences reflected the relative seriousness of each defendant's involvement and the need for a deterrent signal.

Orders