R v Singh
[2021] NZHC 3555
•17 December 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CRI-2021-019-1782
[2021] NZHC 3555
THE QUEEN v
BAHADUR SINGH
Hearing: 17 December 2021 Appearances:
R L Guthrie and U Keller for Crown C Bean for Defendant
Judgment:
17 December 2021
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton
R v SINGH [2021] NZHC 3555 [17 December 2021]
[1] Mr Singh, you pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The maximum sentence for that charge is life imprisonment. You entered a guilty plea after I gave you a sentence indication on 16 November 2021.1 The indicated sentence after taking into account a discount for your guilty plea was one of two years two months imprisonment. The main issue for me to determine today is whether I should apply any further discounts to reflect other mitigating factors that have emerged through the material provided to me at sentencing.
[2] Before I deal with that issue it is important that I set out the factual basis on which you are to be sentenced. This was contained in a summary of facts used for the purpose of the sentence indication hearing. This revealed that you are one of three adult children. You and your siblings lived in relatively close proximity to your parents. The family operates a substantial dairy farming business in the district where they live.
[3] The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the evening of 16 March 2021. On that date you arrived at your parents’ address in a heavily intoxicated state after consuming a significant amount of whisky during the day. A short time later one of your brothers arrived at the address with an associate to drop food off to your parents. For some unknown reason you immediately became aggressive towards your brother. At that point your father ordered you to leave the address. You refused to do so.
[4] In order to calm the situation down your brother left the room and walked towards the rear of the house. Rather than let him go, you followed him yelling abuse and threats. When the two of you reached the back deck of the address you confronted your brother and aggressively challenged him to a fight. He refused to engage in a fight with you and walked away. You then punched him in the back, causing your brother to fall off the deck onto the paving below. At this point your father called the police. Your brother had also asked the associate who arrived with him to call the police and also to seek help from your other brother, who lived nearby.
1 R v Singh [2021] NZHC 3089.
[5] The brother whom you had attacked was then able to restrain you on the ground. With the assistance of his associate and your father, your brother tied your hands behind your back with a length of rope to prevent you from fighting against them again. Your other brother arrived at the scene a short time later. Throughout this you continued to yell abuse and threats. This prompted your two brothers to leave the address in the hope that this would calm you down. Unfortunately, however, that was not what happened.
[6] You remained angry and abusive and turned your attention to your father. By this stage you had been able to untie yourself. You confronted your father and grabbed his shirt with two hands. He responded by grabbing your shirt in a similar fashion. You then pushed your father backwards. This caused him to fall through the glass pane of the back door. Your father cut his upper right buttock badly on the broken glass in the frame as he fell through it. This also caused a laceration to his left forearm.
[7] The wound to your father’s buttock severed a main artery, resulting in very rapid loss of blood. Although he was able to extricate himself from the doorframe, your father collapsed a short time later due to extensive blood loss. Police and emergency services arrived a short time later but were unable to resuscitate your father. He died the following morning. The cause of death was the significant blood loss caused by the wounds sustained when you pushed him through the glass doorframe.
Starting point
[8] The first step in the sentencing process was to set a starting point for the sentence to be imposed on you. I considered the starting point of two years nine months imprisonment was appropriate. This was because the death was not premeditated and resulted from a push rather than a punch or some other direct application of force.
Aggravating factors
[9] You have previous convictions but none for offending of this type. The Crown did not seek an uplift to reflect aggravating factors personal to you, and I do not apply an uplift to reflect your previous convictions.
Mitigating factors
[10] You have placed a bundle of material before the Court in support of a submission by your counsel that you should be entitled to an additional discount for mitigating factors other than the guilty plea. Surprisingly, the writer of the report did not contact members of your family about the version of events that you gave to him. This called into question your childhood and your treatment at your father’s hands. It also called into question your father’s treatment of your mother.
[11] Prior to the hearing I advised your counsel I was not prepared to proceed on the basis of the matters contained in that report when the report writer had not contacted wider members of your family to discuss them. Prior the hearing today the police had been in touch with members of your family and they dispute much of what you told the report writer. I therefore gave your counsel the opportunity of having your sentencing adjourned so that the family could formally place before me their responses to what you told the report writer. You could also provide the Court with any further information you might wish to provide. I offered a fixture on February 2022 if you wished to avail yourself of this choice. I did this because I did not want you to feel under pressure for sentencing to proceed today when a date a short time away was available. As matters have transpired, your counsel tells me you are anxious to be sentenced today. I need to make it clear, however, that in sentencing you I am not prepared to take into account matters contained in the report to the extent that they are disputed by members of your family.
[12] You have written a letter in which you express your heartfelt remorse at the devastation you have caused your family. This is well made because I have received victim impact statements and these make it clear that your offending has had a truly devastating effect on your family. This was a close-knit family. Not only did they have a close personal relationship, but they also had a close business relationship. One your brothers assisted your father to run the farming operation. He is now struggling to run it on his own. Your mother, as would be expected, is also devastated by what has happened. The effect of your offending on your family is major and will be with them for many years to come.
[13] You have also provided the Court with a safety plan for your future in which you set out your goals and aspirations. That is commendable of course, but the issue really here is your conduct towards your family. I am not sure whether you are going to have anything to do with your family in the future so I am really not sure how much weight I can place on that so-called safety plan.
[14] I am, however, prepared to give you limited allowance for the remorse that you express. I propose to reduce the sentence by one month to reflect that factor. This means that the end sentence is reduced to one of two years one month imprisonment. As a result, a sentence of home detention is not possible. I wish to make it clear, however, Mr Singh, that even if I had got to a point where the sentence was one of two years imprisonment, I would not have imposed a sentence of home detention. This was extremely serious offending. It did not result from a “one off” push. Rather it was the culmination of a series of events in which you demonstrated a considerable and consistent degree of hostility towards members of your family. I do not consider the sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation and the need to hold you accountable for your actions would be sufficiently met in this case by a sentence of home detention.
Sentence
[15] Mr Singh, on the charge of manslaughter you are sentenced to two years one month imprisonment. The Crown has offered no evidence on the remaining charges that you face and you are now discharged on those charges pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
Lang J
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS
PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
KIRIKIRIROA ROHE CRI-2021-019-1782 [2021] NZHC 3089
THE QUEEN
v
BAHADUR SINGH
Hearing: 16 November 2021
Counsel:R L Guthrie for Crown C Bean for Defendant
Judgment: 16 November 2021
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
[1] Mr Singh is due to stand trial on a charge of manslaughter on 14 February 2022. He now seeks a sentence indication. This is an indication of the sentence the Court would impose if he entered a guilty plea to the charge at this point. If he does not accept the indication it will be of no further effect. If Mr Singh proceeds to trial and is found guilty the trial Judge will sentence him in accordance with the facts as he or she finds them to be.
Background
[2] The summary of facts used for the purpose of this indication records that Mr Singh is the oldest of three adult siblings. He and his siblings live in relatively close proximity to their parents. The family operates a substantial dairy farming business in the district where they live.
[3] The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the evening of Tuesday 16 March 2021. On that occasion Mr Singh arrived at his parents’ address in a heavily intoxicated state after having consumed a significant amount of whisky during the day.
[4] Shortly after 7 pm one of Mr Singh’s brothers arrived at the address with an associate to drop food off to his parents. Mr Singh immediately became aggressive towards his brother and his father then ordered him to leave the address. Mr Singh refused to do so.
[5] In order to de-escalate the situation Mr Singh’s brother left the room and made his way to the rear of the house. Mr Singh followed him, yelling abuse and threats. When they reached the back deck of the address Mr Singh confronted his brother and aggressively challenged him to a fight. Mr Singh’s brother refused and walked away. Mr Singh then punched him in the back, causing his brother to fall off the deck onto the paving below.
[6] At this point Mr Singh’s father rang the police. Mr Singh’s brother also asked his associate to call the police and to seek help from Mr Singh’s other brother, who lived nearby.
[7] The brother whom Mr Singh had attacked was then able to restrain Mr Singh on the ground. With the assistance of his associate and his father, Mr Singh’s brother tied Mr Singh’s hands behind his back with a length of rope to prevent him engaging in further assaults until the police arrived. Mr Singh’s other brother arrived at the scene a short time later.
[8] Mr Singh continued to yell abuse and threats. This prompted his two brothers to leave the address in the hope that this would calm Mr Singh down. Unfortunately, however, it did not have that effect. Mr Singh remained angry and abusive and turned his attention to his father. He was also able to untie himself. Mr Singh then confronted his father and grabbed his father’s shirt with two hands. His father responded by grabbing Mr Singh’s shirt in a similar fashion.
[9] Mr Singh then pushed his father backwards. This caused him to fall through the glass pane of the back door. His father cut his upper right buttock badly on the broken glass in the frame as he fell through it. This also caused a laceration to his left forearm. The wound to his father’s buttock severed a main artery, resulting in very rapid loss of blood. Although Mr Singh’s father was able to extricate himself from the door frame, he collapsed a short time later due to extensive blood loss.
[10] The police arrived a short time later but were unable to resuscitate Mr Singh’s father. He died the following morning. The cause of death was the significant blood loss caused by the wound sustained when he was pushed through the glass door frame.
Starting point
[11] The first point in the sentencing process is to set a starting point. This is the sentence that would be imposed having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case.
[12] In the present case several factors need to be taken into account. First, this was not a premeditated attack on Mr Singh’s father. It was a push that was delivered in the heat of the moment. Nevertheless, as the Crown submits, the event that caused Mr Singh’s father’s death was the culmination of several incidents that bear Mr Singh little credit. He became abusive and threatening towards his brothers and then turned his attention to his father. This was not an isolated incident that had erupted out of nowhere. Rather, it was the end result of a series of events in which Mr Singh was the party who provoked the confrontation.
[13] Counsel are not far apart regarding the appropriate starting point. They have referred me to a series of cases involving broadly similar conduct that has resulted in the death of the victim.2 Mr Bean submits on Mr Singh’s behalf that a starting point of between two and two and a half years imprisonment is appropriate. Ms Guthrie for the Crown submits that a starting point of between two and a half and three years imprisonment is appropriate.
[14] I consider the Crown is closer to the mark having regard to the aggravated nature of the offending and the devastating effect the incident had not only for Mr Singh Senior but also for the family as a whole. I consider a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment is appropriate.
Aggravating factors
[15] Mr Singh has previous convictions but none for offending of this type. The Crown does not seek an uplift to reflect aggravating factors personal to Mr Singh.
Mitigating factors
[16] The only mitigating factor for which I would be prepared to give credit at this stage is that for guilty plea. It would come relatively late in the piece but would save Mr Singh’s family the trauma of having to endure a criminal trial in which the events giving rise to their loved one’s death would be the subject of evidence before a jury.
2 R v O’Brien, HC Auckland, CRI-2009-004-11941, 29 September 2009; R v Paku, HC Hamilton, CRI-2005-019-6408, 2 September 2006; R v Gray [2019] NZHC 2364; R v Hetaraka [2015] NZHC 2631; R v Steen HC Hamilton, TO33048, 29 June 2004; Mouat v R [2017] NZCA 603.
Furthermore, a guilty plea would be an acknowledgement by Mr Singh of his responsibility for his father’s death. I would therefore allow a discount of just over 20 per cent to reflect a guilty plea entered at this stage. This would reduce the sentence by seven months and result in a sentence of two years two months imprisonment.
[17] Mr Singh may be able to point to further mitigating factors at sentencing to justify additional discounts to reduce the sentence further. If so, he may be eligible for a sentence of home detention. Whether or not such a sentence is appropriate in the present case remains to be seen because the seriousness of the offending would obviously need to be taken into account. However, the end sentence may well depend on any additional material provided to the Court at sentencing.
Time for acceptance
[18] Mr Bean is to file and serve a memorandum no later than Monday 22 November 2021 to advise the Court and the Crown whether Mr Singh accepts the indication I have given. If he does, he can be arraigned at the criminal callover on 23 November 2021 at 9 am.
Lang J
0