R v Singh - [2024] NZHC 1253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-005132

[2024] NZHC 1253

THE KING

v

MANANBIR SINGH SARWAN SINGH MANDEEP SHARMA NAVNEET SINGH

Hearing: 20 May 2024

Counsel:

HD Benson-Pope and SJ Cox for Crown

RM Mansfield KC for Defendant Mananbir Singh SR Lack for Defendant Sarwan Singh

HCW Redwood for Defendant Mandeep Sharma OWL Troon for Defendant Navneet Singh

Judgment:

20 May 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. RM Mansfield KC, Auckland. SR Lack, Auckland.
HCW Redwood, Auckland. OWL Troon, Auckland.

R v SINGH [2024] NZHC 1253 [20 May 2024]

Charges

[1] Mananbir Singh, you are for sentence on one charge: the manslaughter of Jashandeep Singh. Navneet Singh, Sarwan Singh and Mandeep Sharma, each of you is for sentence for being an accessory after the fact to the intentional or deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm upon Jashandeep Singh.

[2] All of you were found guilty by a jury earlier this year. Mananbir Singh, you were found not guilty of Jashandeep’s murder. I was, of course, the trial Judge.

[3]Because of the commonality of surname, I use first names only from this point.

Acknowledgements

[4] I begin by again acknowledging the presence of family and friends, and the difficult circumstances in which we meet.

[5] I acknowledge Mr Gurgit Singh’s victim impact statement, which was read to the court this morning, and also that of Ms Karen D’Souza and her presence here today. I record the obvious: Jashandeep’s death has caused profound harm.

[6] It is important to be clear about this: the sentences that I impose today are not measures of Jashandeep’s life. Nor, indeed, could any sentence capture the loss caused by the criminal taking of someone’s life.

The facts

[7]I turn to the facts.

[8] Mananbir, you were in business with Jashandeep. For reasons that remain unclear, despite a trial, your relationship broke down in late 2020 or early 2021. You separated your business interests and maintained infrequent contact thereafter.

[9] On the evening of Saturday, 14 May 2022, Jashandeep hosted a small gathering to celebrate a friend obtaining residency. Jashandeep was drinking. Mananbir, you and the other defendants were in the city, socialising. You were drinking too.

[10] At 12.44 on the morning of Sunday, 15 May 2022, Jashandeep called you, Mananbir. His call was the first of a series of communications by him to you. He was angry and abusive in those communications. He threatened you. I find he referred at least once to shooting you. However, I also find you were not fearful of Jashandeep. Indeed, you welcomed a confrontation with him that morning. At 1.15 that morning, you sent a text message to him saying, essentially, you would finish or end this today.1 You deleted that message from your phone. Your position is that message referred to calling Police. I have no doubt that claim is untrue.

[11] Jashandeep left his home at or about the time of…

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 Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Singh [2024] NZHC 1253
Case: [2024] NZHC 1253
Decision Date: 20 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The King v Mananbir Singh, Sarwan Singh, Mandeep Sharma, and Navneet Singh concerns the sentencing of the defendants following their convictions for various charges related to the death of Jashandeep Singh. Mananbir Singh was convicted of manslaughter, while the others were found guilty of being accessories after the fact to the infliction of grievous bodily harm on Jashandeep Singh. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as any mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate starting points and final sentences for each defendant, considering the severity of their respective roles in the events leading to Jashandeep Singh's death. For Mananbir Singh, the court had to assess the seriousness of the manslaughter charge, weighing factors such as the use of a weapon, the premeditated nature of the act, and the provocative conduct of the victim. For the other defendants, the court needed to evaluate their roles as accessories after the fact and determine suitable sentences that reflect the seriousness of their involvement.

The court reasoned that Mananbir Singh's actions were premeditated and involved the use of a weapon, which made his offence more serious. However, the provocative conduct of the victim also played a role in mitigating the sentence. The starting point for Mananbir Singh was set at six-and-a-half years' imprisonment, but after considering mitigating factors such as his good character and lack of prior convictions, the final sentence was five years' imprisonment. For the other defendants, the court considered their roles in hiding weapons, disconnecting the CCTV, and fabricating a story to the police. Each was sentenced to terms of home detention, ranging from four months to five months, reflecting the seriousness of their involvement and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Mananbir Singh was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for manslaughter, Sarwan Singh received a four-month term of home detention, Mandeep Sharma was sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment (resulting in near-immediate release and deportation), and Navneet Singh was sentenced to a five-month term of home detention.

Orders