R v Singh - [2023] NZHC 2040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-090-4566

[2023] NZHC 2040

THE KING

V

KANWARPAL SINGH

Hearing 2 August 2023

Appearances:

F Culliney and P Philpott for Crown S Thode for Defendant

Sentence:

2 August 2023

SENTENCE OF JOHNSTONE J

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

R v SINGH [2023] NZHC 2040 [2 August 2023]

Preliminary

[1] Kanwarpal Singh, it is my task to sentence you for the crime of murdering Farzana Yaqubi. I am going to take some time to let you and the other people here in Court know the reasons for the sentence I have chosen. I will ask you to stand up when it comes time for me to impose that sentence. So at the end of my remarks, when I am imposing my sentence, that is when I will ask you to stand up.

Offending

[2] First, I will describe the offending you have acknowledged by pleading guilty to a Crown summary of the facts. I start, where I should, with Ms Yaqubi.

[3] Farzana Yaqubi was 21 years old when she died. She came to New Zealand from Afghanistan, when she was aged two. Ms Yaqubi came with her mother and siblings to join her father, taking refuge here against the challenges of life in a wartorn country.

[4] Ms Yaqubi flourished in New Zealand. She was smart and independent. She did well at school and started working part-time aged 14. At the end of 2022, Ms Yaqubi had just finished her third year at the Auckland University of Technology’s Law School. She should have had a rich and fulfilling life ahead of her.

[5] However, just over two years earlier, in September 2020, she had met you. You noticed her, no doubt on her way to or from her studies at AUT, occasionally passing by the place on Queen Street in Auckland City, where you worked as a security guard.

[6] You engaged her in conversation one time, and you were successful in having her agree to sit down with you for a coffee. From that point, you were able to stay in touch with Ms Yaqubi, including through use of the social media application, Instagram.

[7] Over time, she blocked your Instagram messages. You responded during 2021 and 2022 by creating new accounts, and by contacting Ms Yaqubi using these new accounts.

[8] Your messages started to threaten Ms Yaqubi. In one, you threatened to kidnap her, saying you would give her 365 days to fall in love with you. In another, you threatened to throw acid on her face. You also added Ms Yaqubi’s family and friends as social media links, so that you could maintain contact with her.

[9] In October 2022, Ms Yaqubi made an online report to police, complaining about your harassment. On 5 December 2022, Ms Yaqubi noticed you following her at Westgate shopping mall, and she approached a security officer for assistance. On 6 December 2022, you used…

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 [2023] NZHC 2040
Case: [2023] NZHC 2040
Decision Date: 2 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Singh involved Kanwarpal Singh, who was sentenced for the murder of Farzana Yaqubi. The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate sentence for Singh, taking into account the nature of the offence, the aggravating factors, and the offender's personal circumstances. The court had to decide whether the aggravating factors identified under section 104 of the Sentencing Act warranted a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years, and whether any reduction in the minimum period was justified based on Singh's personal circumstances or his guilty plea.

The court found that Singh's offending involved calculated and lengthy planning, significant brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness, and a particularly vulnerable victim, thus satisfying the criteria for section 104 circumstances. This led to a presumptive minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. The court assessed the nominal minimum period to be 17-and-a-half years, but concluded that applying the 17-year presumption would not result in manifest injustice. Additionally, the court applied a one-year reduction for Singh's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years.

The final orders of the court were that Kanwarpal Singh be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Farzana Yaqubi, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.

Orders