R v Singh - [2019] NZHC 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-013249

[2019] NZHC 148

THE QUEEN

v

ROHIT DEEPAK SINGH

Hearing: 14 February 2019

Appearances:

Y Yelavich for the Crown

B Sellars and A Singh for D P Singh

Judgment:

14 February 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

Counsel/Solicitors: Fletcher Walker, Manukau B Sellars, Auckland

R v ROHIT DEEPAK SINGH [2019] NZHC 148 [14 February 2019]

[1] Rohit Singh you come up for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Arishma Chand on 12 November 2017.

[2] The Sentencing Act 2002 sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The primary purposes of sentencing in this case are to hold you accountable for the harm you have done,1 and to denounce your conduct.2 Your sentencing must also serve to deter you and others from committing similar offences3 and to protect the community.4

[3] The principles of sentencing that are of particular relevance in this case are the need to take into account the seriousness of your offending5 and to achieve consistency with appropriate sentencing levels.6

[4] As you have been found guilty of murder, s 102(1) of the Sentencing Act requires me to sentence you to imprisonment for life unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. In this case both counsel agree that imprisonment for life is appropriate and there is no suggestion that such would be manifestly excessive. I too am satisfied that imprisonment for life is appropriate.

[5] Given that position, the primary issue in sentencing you today is to determine what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed as part of your sentence;7 A minimum period of imprisonment is the minimum period that you are to be imprisoned for before you can be eligible for parole. As you have heard, both counsel are agreed that s 104 of the Sentencing Act applies. This section requires me to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years if particular circumstances apply, unless I am satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to impose such a sentence. In your case, both counsel are agreed that three of the circumstances specified in s 104 are present:

1      Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a).
2      Section 7(1)(e).
3      Section 7(1)(f).
4      Section 7(1)(g).
5      Section 8(a).
6      Section 8(e).
7      Section 103.

(a)the murder involved calculated or lengthy planning;8

(b)the murder involved the unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, a dwelling place;9 and

(c)the murder was committed with a high degree of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness.10

[6] From this starting point Ms Yelavich submits, on behalf of the Crown, that you should be imprisoned for a minimum period of 18-19 years. Ms Sellars, on your behalf, submits that a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years would not be manifestly unjust. I will now deal with the applicable circumstances from s 104, as well as the other relevant circumstances that apply to the offending and to…

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 [2019] NZHC 148
Case: [2019] NZHC 148
Decision Date: 14 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rohit Singh was convicted of the murder of Arishma Chand and was sentenced by Powell J in the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the murder, including whether imprisonment for life was suitable and, if so, the minimum period of imprisonment. Singh had been found guilty of murder and the court was required to determine the minimum period of imprisonment before eligibility for parole. The court considered the circumstances of the murder, including the degree of planning, unlawful entry into a dwelling, and the brutality and callousness of the attack.

Powell J found that the murder was premeditated, with Singh having exhibited obsessive and stalking behaviour towards Arishma Chand over a period of 14 months after their relationship ended. Singh had made preparations to commit the murder, including selecting two weapons and taking gloves, demonstrating calculated planning. The court also found that Singh unlawfully entered Arishma’s home, where he carried out the brutal and callous attack. The court emphasised the severity of the attack, noting that Arishma sustained at least 20 cutting and stabbing wounds before Singh switched to an unidentified weapon and struck her repeatedly on the head. Powell J concluded that the murder was an evil act with devastating consequences for Arishma’s family. The court rejected any mitigating circumstances, finding no evidence of remorse or any grounds for a reduced sentence.

In light of the circumstances of the offence and the impact on the victim’s family, Powell J determined that life imprisonment with a minimum period of 19 years was the appropriate sentence for Singh. The court found that a minimum term of 17 years or more was necessary to meet the purposes and principles of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 19 years.

Orders