R v Singh - [2015] NZHC 2370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-004-005182 [2015] NZHC 2370

THE QUEEN

v

MANDEEP SINGH

Hearing: 29 September 2015

Appearances:

R McCoubrey and H Max for the Crown
A Couchman for the Defendant

Sentencing:

29 September 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors / Counsel:

Mr R McCoubrey, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr A Couchman, Auckland

R v SINGH [2015] NZHC 2369 [29 September 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Singh, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to one count of the murder of your wife, Parmita Rani and one count of the attempted murder of Mr Parminder Singh, who was a friend of your wife.

[2] The mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment.1 The maximum sentence for attempted murder is 14 years imprisonment.2 Although I am going to sentence you to life imprisonment, I must still determine the minimum period of imprisonment that you should serve.3 The minimum period of imprisonment refers to the minimum amount of time you will be kept in prison before the Parole Board can consider if you are suitable for monitored release into the community.

Facts

[3] I first outline the facts of your offending. For ease of understanding, I will refer to Mr Parminder Singh as Parminder throughout.

[4] You had been married to your wife, Ms Rani, who was 22 years old at the time of her death, for about two years. She attended an international school on Queen Street, and there had become friends with Parminder.

[5] It appears that on the evening of 21 May 2015, Ms Rani decided to leave your shared home while you were at work. Later that night, you called a friend of Ms Rani’s, Mr Khan, and pretended to be a fellow student. You asked Mr Khan if he knew Parminder. When Mr Khan challenged you, you admitted that you were Ms Rani’s husband and asked again about Parminder and whether Parminder and Ms Rani were in a relationship. Mr Khan told you that he did not know of any relationship between them.

[6] According to a statement Mr Khan made to the Police, you told him you had warned Parminder twice that you had drunk three beers and were driving down the

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 172(1) and Sentencing Act 2002, s 102. This sentence applies unless it would be manifestly unjust to impose life imprisonment. There is no dispute that the very high standard under s 102 would not be met in the current case.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 173(1).
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86.

motorway looking for him. You also reportedly told him that you had purchased two knives from a $2 shop. You then said you only wanted Ms Rani, and would come to the school the next day to get her.

[7] Approximately two hours later, just after midnight on 22 May 2015, you called Parminder. According to a statement he made to the Police, you also told him that…

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 [2015] NZHC 2370
Case: [2015] NZHC 2370
Decision Date: 29 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Singh was sentenced for the murder of his wife, Parmita Rani, and the attempted murder of Parminder Singh, a friend of his wife. Singh had pleaded guilty to both charges. The court had to determine the minimum period of imprisonment for the offence of murder, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found that the aggravating factors included the premeditation, the level of harm caused, the fact that there were two victims, and the breach of trust inherent in attacking his wife. The mitigating factors included the guilty plea and the defendant's remorse. The court considered the submissions of both the Crown and the defendant's counsel and determined that the starting point for the minimum period of imprisonment should be 12 years and six months imprisonment. The court also uplifted the minimum period by two years to recognise the seriousness of the attempted murder charge. The court took into account the defendant's good character and cultural background, but considered that the seriousness of the offending meant little weight could be given to these considerations. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the charge of murder, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years, and a concurrent sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment on the charge of attempted murder.
The court also recognised the bravery of a member of the public who intervened to disarm the defendant and prevent further harm to the victims. The court acknowledged the impact of the offending on the victims and their families and the wider community. The court expressed its sympathy to the family of the deceased and commended the bravery of the member of the public who intervened.

Orders