R v Singh - [2021] NZHC 3555

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.…

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 [2021] NZHC 3555
Case: [2021] NZHC 3555
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bahadur Singh was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for manslaughter, a charge arising from an incident on 16 March 2021 where Singh, in a heavily intoxicated state, attacked his father, causing fatal injuries. Singh's father died from significant blood loss due to a severed artery after being pushed through a glass door by Singh. Singh pleaded guilty to the charge, leading to a sentence indication of two years and two months imprisonment, discounted for his guilty plea. The court examined whether further discounts were warranted for mitigating factors. Singh submitted a report detailing family disputes, but the court found it unreliable due to the author's failure to consult family members. The court acknowledged Singh's remorse and his family's devastation but decided against further discounts since the family disputed the report's contents. Ultimately, Singh was sentenced to two years and one month imprisonment, with no sentence of home detention considered appropriate due to the serious nature of the offence.

The primary legal issue was whether additional mitigating factors could justify a further reduction in the sentence beyond the discount for the guilty plea. The court found that the mitigating factors presented were either unreliable or insufficient to warrant additional discounts. The court highlighted the seriousness of Singh's actions and their devastating impact on his family, concluding that a sentence of home detention would not adequately meet the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability.

Orders