R v Singh - [2024] NZHC 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-619

[2024] NZHC 491

THE KING

v

JOBANPREET SINGH

Hearing: 8 March 2024

Appearances:

JAE Tausi and L A Taula for the Crown

P J Kaye and E M Greeson for the Defendant

Sentencing:

8 March 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Manukau

Counsel: P Kaye, Auckland
E M Greeson, Auckland

R v SINGH [2024] NZHC 491 [8 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] Jobanpreet Singh, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty of the attempted murder of Harnek Singh after a six-week jury trial in the Auckland High Court. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 14 years’ imprisonment.1

Background

[2] The victim in this matter is Harnek Singh, who resides in Manurewa. Harnek Singh is a member of the Sikh religion and is well known within the community as a person who commentates on politics and the Sikh religion in both New Zealand and around the world. Harnek Singh runs a popular YouTube channel and radio broadcast where he shares his views. He is a polarising figure in the Sikh community. You did not know the victim personally but were aware of his views.

[3] You and your co-offenders attended a local Sikh temple in East Tāmaki. Gurinderpal Brar was the spiritual leader of the temple. Gurinderpal Brar inspired devotion and obedience from his congregation, but more so from his inner circle, known as devotees.

[4] In the lead up to the attack, Gurinderpal Brar was angry with Harnek Singh’s commentary on Sikh politics and religion. Gurinderpal Brar sought assistance from members of his inner circle at the temple to kill Harnek Singh.

[5] About one week before the attack, Gurinderpal Brar approached Jaspal Singh as a possible recruit. He set out his plan to perform a "hit" on Harnek Singh just before Christmas saying he "needed Harnek gone". Gurinderpal Brar sourced a bag of weapons, including knives and bats, and stolen number plates to be fitted onto a vehicle used in the attack.

[6] On 23 December 2020, Gurinderpal Brar directed Jaspal Singh to drive to Harnek Singh’s workplace and pointed out his vehicle, a red ute. Gurinderpal Brar told Jaspal Singh that the “job” was to happen that night. At about 6 pm, Jaspal Singh returned to the temple and met with Gurinderpal Brar and Sarvjeet Sidhu.

1 Crimes Act 1969, ss 173 and 66.

Gurinderpal Brar instructed Jaspal Singh and Sarvjeet Sidhu to see the plan through and gave them the bag of weapons and stolen number plates. That night, you met with Jaspal Singh and Sarvjeet Sidhu in Papatoetoe. You helped switch the number plates on Jaspal Singh’s black Ford Ranger before driving to the temple where Harnek Singh conducted his broadcasts and there you waited for him to leave.

[7] Harnek Singh left work at approximately 10.09 pm and began driving home. He was followed by…

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 491
Case: [2024] NZHC 491
Decision Date: 8 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jobanpreet Singh was sentenced in the Auckland High Court for his involvement in the attempted murder of Harnek Singh. The attack was meticulously planned by Gurinderpal Brar, the spiritual leader of a local Sikh temple, who was incensed by Harnek Singh's commentary on Sikh politics and religion. Singh and his co-offenders executed the plan by following Harnek Singh to his home, where they viciously assaulted him, inflicting over 40 stab wounds. The attack left Harnek Singh with life-altering injuries and a harrowing psychological impact on him and his family.

The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Singh, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The Crown argued for a starting point of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment, aligning with the sentences of Singh's co-offenders, while Singh's counsel contended for a lesser starting point due to his more limited physical involvement in the attack. Regarding personal mitigating factors, the Crown opposed any significant discounts, whereas Singh's counsel highlighted his difficult upbringing, lack of family support in New Zealand, and his devout nature which made him susceptible to the influence of Gurinderpal Brar.

The court adopted a slightly lower starting point of 11 years and six months’ imprisonment, acknowledging Singh's lesser role in the physical attack. A discount of 15 per cent was granted for the personal mitigating factors presented in the cultural and psychological reports. However, no discount was given for good character or the prospects of rehabilitation due to Singh's lack of remorse and denial of his involvement in the offence. A reduction of nine months was made for the time Singh spent on electronically monitored bail. Consequently, Singh was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for the charge of attempted murder.

Orders