Legal Research
Cases
R v Singh

R v Singh

Case [2022] NZHC 1188 26 May 2022

Reduction for Early Guilty Plea

Reduction for Time Served on Curfew

Sentencing

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-000619

[2022] NZHC 1188

THE QUEEN

v

JASPAL SINGH

Hearing: 26 May 2022

Appearances:

L Radich for Crown

R M Mansfield and O W L Troon for Defendant

Sentencing:

26 May 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau
Counsel: R M Mansfield/O W L Troon, Auckland

R v JASPAL SINGH [2022] NZHC 1188 [26 May 2022]

[1] Jaspal Singh, you are for sentence in this Court as you have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Harnek Singh. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Background

[2] The victim, Harnek Singh, is a member of the Sikh religion, well known within the community as a commentator on politics and the Sikh religion in both New Zealand and around the world. He maintained a YouTube channel and radio station to express his views. His opinions about and criticism of aspects of the Sikh religion and politics in India polarised the Sikh community.

[3] You and your co-defendants were all known to each other through your attendance at a different Sikh temple. One of your co-defendants was the spiritual leader at the temple you attended. While you were not directly known to Harnek Singh you were aware of his views.

[4] A plan was formulated to kill Harnek Singh. You were enlisted to help in that plan. You and your co-defendants met on more than one occasion to discuss the plan prior to the attack on the evening on 23 December 2020.

[5] On that day, you and your co-defendants who physically took part in the attack, were armed with baseball bats and knives. You and the other defendants waited outside the victim’s temple for him to come out. The victim left his temple at about
10.09 pm to drive home.

[6] As he drove towards Papatoetoe, you began to follow his vehicle in your black Ford Ranger ute. You had previously replaced your license plates with stolen ones. You followed him through Papatoetoe and into Manurewa along Roscommon Road, where you were joined by two more vehicles. Just before the victim pulled into the driveway of his home his car was rammed by one of the other vehicles, forcing it off the road. At that stage you and the other five attackers got out of the three cars to attack the victim.

[7] The victim had locked his car door and used his car horn to attract attention. That led to the Police being called. But before they arrived, the driver’s side window of the victim’s car was smashed and you and your co-defendants attacked the victim, slashing and stabbing at him over his upper body and head. The victim was stabbed and cut 40 times to his arms, chest, neck and head area. Although the attack lasted less than five minutes the victim was badly injured and was left losing a large amount of blood.

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 [2022] NZHC 1188
Case: [2022] NZHC 1188
Decision Date: 26 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Singh was heard and sentenced on 26 May 2022. Jaspal Singh was convicted of the attempted murder of Harnek Singh, a member of the Sikh community known for his political and religious commentary. The attack, which involved multiple assailants armed with baseball bats and knives, resulted in severe injuries to the victim. The court was required to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly the need to hold Singh accountable for his actions and to denounce the violent conduct. The court considered various aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature of the attack, the extreme violence inflicted, and the apparent motivation behind the attack.

Singh's personal history, including past convictions for violence and a period of rehabilitation, was also examined. The court acknowledged Singh's efforts to turn his life around but did not consider cultural or religious factors as mitigating elements. After evaluating the applicable sentencing principles and the mitigating factors, the court determined a starting point of 12½ years’ imprisonment, adjusted for Singh's guilty plea and other mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of five years and three months’ imprisonment. The court decided against imposing a minimum non-parole period, leaving the determination of parole eligibility to the Parole Board.

Orders