R v Singh
[2015] NZHC 2370
•29 September 2015
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 DefendantSentencing:
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 you had bought knives from a $2 shop and were going to kill Ms Rani. Your intention to kill Ms Rani is said to be confirmed by a note, Mr Singh, which you wrote at some stage before the killing.
[8] That morning, at around 9:00 am, you went to the Queen Street address where Ms Rani’s school was located. At 9:07 am, and 9:34 am, you transferred a total of $5,000 out of your bank account, contacting one of the recipients to ask them to pay a portion of the transferred money to your family.
[9] When Ms Rani arrived at the school, Mr Singh, you confronted her and told her she needed to come home. She told you that she would not, as she had to sit an exam that day. The argument was heated, but only verbal. You took her credit card, and left the scene.
[10] At 12:30 pm you returned, with five knives. You waited on a couch in the school foyer, and when Ms Rani and Parminder exited the cafeteria near the exam room, you approached them. Mr Singh, you stabbed Ms Rani in the chest with such force that your knife penetrated her chest bone, severing an artery, a vein and her airways. You stabbed her two more times, one piercing her left cheek and striking her jaw bone and the second causing only a superficial cut to her face. The stab wound in the chest was fatal and Ms Rani died at the scene.
[11] When you stabbed Ms Rani, Parminder tried to intervene. He placed you in a bear hug and wrestled with you. With the assistance of another student, they removed the knife you were holding. Parminder then bent over Ms Rani to offer her assistance. While he was leaning over her, Mr Singh, you produced a second knife and attacked Parminder from behind.
[12] You stabbed him on the back of his head, and three further times. These caused wounds behind his left ear, and a stab in his back penetrated and punctured Parminder’s lung causing it to deflate.
[13] A member of the public, witnessing your attacks, intervened and disarmed you. As he held you on a couch, you continued to shout and gesture towards Parminder and Ms Rani. In particular, Mr Singh, you yelled that you had killed her. You pulled out a third knife, which was again taken from you.
[14] At this stage I want to pay tribute to that member of the public, Mr Zane Paki, for his incredible bravery. At great risk to his own life, he intervened to protect a stranger. His actions are deserving of the highest commendation.
[15] Mr Singh, you deny forming an intent to kill your wife until the morning of the murder and explain that a note found by the Police in which you talk about killing, and Parminder was, in effect, a murder suicide note in which you gave Parminder’s details to the Police so that they could investigate him after the death of you and your wife.
[16] You only acknowledge forming an intent to kill Parminder after you say he abused you. Whether you formed an intent to kill your wife the evening before or in the morning will not make a difference to the sentence I impose today. There clearly was an element of premeditation, although not over a period of more than a few hours.
Victim Impact Statements
[17] Here I want to acknowledge Ms Rani’s family, especially her two sisters and one brother, who have travelled here from India for the sentencing. The Court and the community extend their deepest sympathy to you for the tragic loss of your sister in this senseless violence. Although I have not received a victim impact statement from the family, I imagine that the pain seems, at times, unbearable.
[18] Parminder has submitted a victim impact statement to the Court. The physical injuries which he received from your attack, Mr Singh, are significant. His
lung collapsed as a result of the stabbing, and he had a head injury and other cuts. He can no longer run, or lift heavy objects and still gets pain in his head and chest which causes him to feel weak. These meant he has had to leave his job and he has been unable to find another. He has suffered unanticipated financial expenses, and his financial stability has been harmed.
[19] Further, he has felt targeted by judgments people have made about him following the incident, and does not feel safe in the community. He feels like people are passing judgment on him because of what happened, and that even his old friends have judged and blamed him. He worries that he will be targeted by you or Ms Rani’s relatives.
[20] Mr Singh, Parminder states that your actions have caused him to become withdrawn and less outgoing. He has found it harder to make friends in New Zealand. Even going to class reminds him of your actions. He will always be upset and angry about what happened to Ms Rani.
Personal circumstances
[21] Mr Singh, you were born in the Punjab region of India and arrived in New Zealand as a dependent of your wife, who was on a student visa. You and your wife met while attending Punjab University, and you were married in 2013. You have completed study, including at a post-graduate level and have been employed in the agricultural industry in India, and as an assistant manager in New Zealand. You have no prior convictions. At the time of the offending, you and your wife were due to renew your visas. As you are not a New Zealand resident, you will be deported from New Zealand when you would otherwise be eligible for parole.
[22] You spoke in your pre-sentence interview with the Department of Corrections of your deep love for your wife. However, you were also assessed as being highly protective and even controlling of Ms Rani in all her movements and associations with others. You have claimed that your offending was driven by the discovery that your wife had formed a friendship with another man, which enraged you; however, you also stated that you were upset with her about her lack of communication, and for not checking on your immigration status. It goes without saying, but for
emphasis I note, that whether your wife had formed a friendship with another man is entirely irrelevant. Nothing she did justified your actions.
[23] You have admitted your guilt, and claimed that you suffered an emotional breakdown and tried to commit suicide on the day of the offending. Although you say that you simply lost control and got mad, you acknowledge going to buy knives, and drinking beer, before waiting in the foyer for your wife. These indicate a series of events beyond simply a momentary loss of control. The interviewer, Mr Singh, said that despite offering some genuine remorse, you saw yourself as the victim and lacked real insight into how your offending had affected not just your victims, but the witnesses and the wider community. This is despite the fact that evidently you have inflicted serious harm on Ms Rani’s family, Parminder’s family and also to the wider community who witnessed your actions at the school that day.
[24] Your lack of self control during the course of the events, your premeditation in buying the knives and lying in wait, and the level of violence in your offending means you are assessed, by the report writer, as posing a high risk of harm to others. You are only assessed as having a low likelihood of reoffending based on your lack of a current intimate relationship, and the reality of having taken a life.
Sentencing
[25] In sentencing you today, I follow the standard approach under the Sentencing Act. I must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Act. The approach I take will involve setting what is known as the starting point for your offending, based on the features of the crime, before considering any relevant aggravating or mitigating features personal to you which might require altering this starting point.4
[26] I must take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Act. The purposes of particular importance to your case, Mr Singh, are the need
to ensure your sentence promotes accountability for the harm you have done to your
4 R v Clifford [2012] 1 NZLR 23 (CA).
victims and to the community,5 and to promote in you responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm6 and to protect the community.7 In imposing a sentence, I must also have regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offending,8 and the need to maintain consistency with other sentences for similar offending.9
Submissions
Crown Submissions
[27] The Crown identify the aggravating features of your offending as the pre- meditation, the level of harm caused, the fact that there were two victims and the breach of trust inherent in attacking your wife. The Crown submits that there was a history of marital disharmony between you and your wife, and that your pattern of behaviour leading up to the stabbing showed deliberate actions, based on clear motive and an ordered thought process. This is demonstrated by your transfers of money to associates, and by waiting at Ms Rani’s school for her to leave her exam before attacking her.
[28] The Crown submits that the characteristics of the offending do not fall within s 104 of the Sentencing Act, but that there is also no justification for departing from the statutory presumption of life imprisonment. Based on this, Mr McCoubrey submits that an appropriate starting point for a minimum period of imprisonment, drawing on comparable case law,10 is 12 – 13 years.
[29] Given the concurrent attempted murder charge, the Crown submits that it is appropriate to uplift the minimum period of imprisonment to represent the seriousness of this associated offending. It is submitted that without the intervention
of a bystander, Mr Singh, you would have continued to attack Parminder. An uplift
5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a).
6 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(b).
7 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(g).
8 Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(a) and (b).
9 Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(e).
10 R v Prole HC Rotorua CRI-2012-070-3726, 30 May 2013; R v Meads HC Hamilton CRI-2009-
019-8828, 31 March 2011; R v Millar HC Auckland CRI-2008-092-14599, 30 August 2010.
of around two years is said to be appropriate based on comparable cases,11 which would result in a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 – 15 years.
[30] The Crown concedes that there are no aggravating features personal to you, and that you are entitled to a guilty plea discount. It is, however, submitted, that I should consider the fact that the Crown case was overwhelming and that convictions on each charge were inevitable. It is submitted a 20 per cent discount is appropriate in those circumstances.
Defendant’s Submissions
[31] Your counsel, Mr Singh, submits that a starting point for the minimum period of imprisonment of around 12 years is appropriate. He concedes that the relevant aggravating features are the use of violence and weapons, the extent of the harm resulting from the offence and the premeditation. However, in relation to the premeditation, Mr Couchman submits that this was low level. He submits that the discovery that your wife was friendly with another man the night before the attack, meant that you were suffering an emotional breakdown and were in shock. The note that was found is said to be, in fact, a suicide note and makes no reference to killing Parminder.
[32] Counsel also states that your belief in Ms Rani’s friendship with Parminder constitutes an element of provocation, given your discovery of this was close in time to the offending. This is said to contextualise your emotional and angry response.
[33] Counsel agrees with the Crown that a two-year uplift to the minimum period of imprisonment for the attempted murder charge is appropriate. It is submitted that a two year discount for your guilty plea would also be appropriate.
Starting point
[34] In determining whether the required 10 year minimum period of imprisonment is sufficient, I must have regard to other cases to establish the
11 Pukeroa v R [2013] NZCA 305 at [40]; R v Skinner HC Auckland CRI-2008-092-14599, 30
August 2010.
sentences which have been imposed for comparable offending. I have regard to a number of cases in which the partner or ex-partner of the offender has been murdered, following the offender obtaining the knowledge or suspicion that their partner has entered a new relationship or has been unfaithful.12
[35] In this case, Mr Singh, I identify the aggravating features of your offending as follows. First, the level of planning and premeditation that you displayed. You called one of the victims, in possibly a drunken state, the night before your attack and “warned” them that you had a knife and were looking for them. You apparently told Parminder that you would kill Ms Rani, and wrote a note, which is said to confirm that intent. None of this showed a particularly high level of planning, as it all occurred within the space of a few hours.
[36] However, the next day, after arguing with Ms Rani, you waited outside her exam room with a knife in order to kill her when she emerged. An extended period of time passed in which you deliberately planned how you would kill her, obtained knives to do so and patiently waited for her to emerge. I consider the level of premeditation shown in such actions to be high. You committed the murder in public with flagrant disregard for anyone around you and your wife at the time. In fact, you attacked Parminder when he bent over to check on Ms Rani.
[37] Further, your use of a weapon, and particularly a knife, is a serious and significant factor. In this case, Mr Singh, you brought a number of knives to the scene of your crime. This allowed you to continue to harm, and attempt to inflict harm, after bystanders had believed they had safely disarmed you.
[38] The resulting loss, damage and harm to the victims and their families is also a relevant factor, although as appropriately conceded by the Crown this is a feature of
all violent offending, particularly when a life is taken.
12 R v Rajamani HC Auckland CRI-2005-004-002, 28 March 2006; R v Meads HC Hamilton CRI-
2009-019-8828, 31 March 2011; R v Miller HC Auckland CRI-2010-090-5044, 21 June 2011; R
v Prole HC Rotorua CRI-2012-070-3726, 30 May 2013; R v Tiumala HC Wellington CRI-2005-
091-581, 9 November 2006.
[39] The Crown has also submitted that it is an inherent breach of trust to attack your wife. Rather than a breach of trust as such, I see it as a completely unacceptable dominance in which you saw yourself as having some sort of right over your wife. As a community we cannot allow this thinking to continue.
[40] I also do not accept the submission of your counsel that any speculative behaviour on the part of your wife can be said to have provoked you, to the extent that it is a mitigating factor of your offending. Your emotional upset at the conduct you believed Ms Rani engaged in did not merely result in you “lashing out” instantaneously. Although your revenge was not calculated in a precise plan, you did have a significant element of premeditation to your actions. Further, the Court of Appeal has suggested that a relevant factor is “whether the response was
proportionate to the nature, duration and gravity of the provocation”.13 There is no
suggestion, to the extent that Ms Rani’s behaviour could even be viewed as
particularly provocative, that your response was on any scale proportionate.
[41] Taking these factors into account, and considering the case law to which I have been referred, I consider that a minimum period of imprisonment higher than the statutory minimum period is necessary to adequately hold you to account for your actions, to protect the community, and to denounce your actions.
[42] Your attack on Ms Rani was planned. Although it involved (to some extent) a lower level of violence than exhibited in other cases that I have considered, the level of premeditation in your actions was significant. That premeditation and the brazenness of your attack, which occurred in a public space in broad daylight, require sanction. It is clear that this Court takes attacks made in public seriously, as demonstrating a significant disregard for the community. That is more so when it is planned.
[43] I therefore consider that a starting point for the minimum period of imprisonment should be 12 years and six months imprisonment.
13 Hamidzadeh v R [2012] NZCA 550, [2013] 1 NZLR 369 at [62].
Adjusting the Starting Point
[44] The sentence to be imposed on you, Mr Singh, cannot be uplifted as you will be sentenced to life imprisonment. However, it has been recognised that, although the minimum period of imprisonment is imposed on the murder charge, that period can be influenced by the surrounding circumstances including other convictions.14
Although in some cases there has been no uplift for attempted murder which occurred concurrently with murder,15 the Crown suggest here that such an uplift should be imposed to represent the attempted murder charge.
[45] Mr Singh, you are lucky in this case that you were restrained before you inflicted more serious damage to Parminder. Although it is not clear whether you were intent on hurting him when you came to the school, or simply took an opportunistic chance to attack him when he knelt in front of you, your guilty plea to attempted murder indicates that you did intend to kill him when you stabbed him in the back. Although Parminder has recovered, the incident was very serious. You struck him on the back of the head, as well as stabbing him in the back severely enough to cause his lung to deflate.
[46] In the normal course of things, a stabbing of that kind on its own would receive a sentence of about eight to nine years imprisonment.16 The aggravating features, based on the Taueki guidelines, are the use of knives, including bringing multiple knives to the scene, attacking the head and the serious injury which was inflicted. I accept that the level of premeditation in the attack was, however, unknown.
[47] As well as requiring you to serve out a sentence for attempted murder concurrently, I consider that it is appropriate to recognise the seriousness of this offending by uplifting the minimum period that I would otherwise impose by two
years.
14 R v Alder CA430/01, 25 June 2002 at [2]; Pukeroa v R [2013] NZCA 305 at [40].
15 R v Li HC Auckland T024483, 15 December 2003; R v Leuluaialii HC Auckland CRI-2003-092-
35815, 11 February 2005.
16 For comparison, see R v Hemopo [2014] NZHC 2950; R v Falani [2014] NZHC 1879; Police v
Kendall [2012] NZHC 2908; R v Mason [2012] NZHC 1849.
[48] There are no other factors personal to you, such as a criminal history, which would warrant uplifting the minimum period of imprisonment beyond that of
14 years six months imprisonment.
Mitigating factors
[49] Mr Couchman has urged me that I should give you a discount for your genuine remorse. However, I have thought long and hard and, for me, your pre- sentence report indicates that, although you are sad that your wife has died, your primary focus has been on yourself. You have written a number of letters to the court, which express your sadness at the situation you have been left in, and particularly the angst you feel about being away from your family. These reinforce the comments in the pre-sentence report that your major focus has been on yourself. I make those comments notwithstanding the genuine remorse displayed in your letter, which has been handed to me today and your appearance in the course of this sentencing.
[50] Your counsel also urges that your good character and cultural background be considered. These are noted. However, I am of the view that the seriousness of your offending means little weight can be given to these considerations.17
[51] In relation to your guilty plea, in R v Williams, the Court of Appeal discussing s 104 murders saw the level of discount given for a guilty plea as a matter of weight which will depend on the circumstances in which the plea was made, bearing in mind that a plea always avoids a murder trial and will give closure sooner to the victim's family.18 However the Court noted that “the discount required for a guilty plea may, however, often be less than in an ordinary case where the statute establishes no presumption that the sentence will be at a particular level.”19
[52] In R v Malik, the Court observed that a discount of between one and two years for a guilty plea in murder cases is a practice which has been followed in the
17 See, in a s 104 context, R v Burns HC Christchurch CRI 2005-009-005733, 10 April 2006. The Court noted that the severity of the crime meant that a good behaviour discount was inappropriate.
18 R v Williams [2005] 2 NZLR 506 (CA) at [72].
19 At [73].
High Court and Court of Appeal in cases decided after R v Hessell.20 Recent Court of Appeal guidance confirmed that for a guilty plea at the earliest available opportunity, a two year discount was imposed,21 and a late guilty plea “may not have attracted an allowance of more than one year.”22 This tends to confirm the levels of discretion available for considering guilty pleas in murder offences.
[53] In my view, the strength or weakness of a prosecution case is relevant in assessing the sentencing discount available for a guilty plea.23 It is hard to contemplate a situation where the case against you was any stronger, Mr Singh, given the public nature of your offending in front of a number of witnesses. Although you pleaded guilty early in the process, I consider that an 18 month reduction in the minimum period of imprisonment is appropriate, taking that principle into account.
[54] Applying that discount brings the overall minimum period of imprisonment to one of 13 years imprisonment.
Conclusion
[55] Mr Singh, would you please stand. Mr Singh, on the charge of murder, I
sentence you to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of
13 years. On the charge of attempted murder, I sentence you to a concurrent sentence of eight and a half years imprisonment.
……………………………….
Woolford J
20 R v Malik [2015] NZHC 466 at [62], citing R v Singh [2014] NZHC 1246 and Cornelius v R
[2014] NZCA 123.
21 Holl v R [2015] NZCA 67.
22 DD (CA595/2014) v R [2015] NZCA 304.
23 R v Hessell [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [60].
0
9
0