R v Singh - [2014] NZHC 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2013-085-13080 [2014] NZHC 1246

THE QUEEN

v

RAJESHWAR SINGH

Hearing: 5 June 2014

Counsel:

I R Murray for Crown
R Stevens and M Paish for Defendant

Sentence:

5 June 2014

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Singh before I give my sentencing remarks I need to give you a warning under the three strikes law. Given your conviction for murder you are now subject to the three strikes law and I am going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violent conviction. You will also be given written notice of this.

[2] If you are convicted of any serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole and without early release.

[3] If you are convicted of murder after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment and that will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum
term of imprisonment.

R v SINGH [2014] NZHC 1246 [5 June 2014]

[4] I now turn to my sentencing remarks. Mr Singh you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to murder and two charges of breaches of a protection order. You pleaded guilty after a sentence indication.

[5] You killed your wife on 25 November 2013. The two of you were married in

1991 and came to New Zealand in 1998. Initially you were a builder but later you became a taxi driver. Your only child tragically died in 2011.

[6] A protection order was obtained by your wife in 2008. There were breaches of the order when you made a number of telephone calls to your wife. It seems that in October 2013 you began thinking about killing your wife and yourself when bail conditions prevented you from seeing her. The bail conditions arose from the protection order breaches.

[7] From mid November onwards the GPS in your taxi showed you were regularly around and near your wife’s address. By mid to late November you began making concrete plans to kill your wife and yourself. You prepared a note in which you confessed to the killing. You purchased a rope and a cook’s knife with a
20 centimetre blade.

[8] On the day of the killing, 25 November, prior to the killing you consumed some kava. You then took the rope and the knife and went to your wife’s address. You smashed a glass pane to enter the house. Of course that was in breach of the protection order and in breach of your bail conditions. Your wife had been afraid of you. She had changed the locks in the house. But that did not stop you.

[9] When your wife heard the breaking of glass she rang the emergency number and the police. You then began stabbing her. There…

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 [2014] NZHC 1246
Case: [2014] NZHC 1246
Decision Date: 5 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Rajeshwar Singh was heard and determined by Ronald Young J on 5 June 2014. The defendant, Rajeshwar Singh, was sentenced for the murder of his wife, committed on 25 November 2013, and for two charges of breaching a protection order. Singh had pleaded guilty following a sentence indication. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the nature of the crime, the defendant’s background, his plea, and expert psychiatric opinions.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for Singh’s minimum period of imprisonment, considering the premeditated nature of the murder, and the relevance of Singh’s early guilty plea and mental health at the time of the offence. The court acknowledged Singh’s early guilty plea and his remorse as mitigating factors but found that his planning and the home invasion aspect of the murder warranted a significant custodial sentence. The court also considered Singh’s mental health, noting his remorse and emotional state at the time of the offence, but concluded that this did not reduce his responsibility for the murder.

Ronald Young J sentenced Singh to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 16 years, reflecting the serious nature of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court also imposed concurrent sentences of three months’ imprisonment for the breaches of the protection order. The sentence was adjusted to reflect Singh’s early guilty plea, which resulted in a two-year reduction from the starting point of 18 years. The court also issued a warning under the three strikes law, advising Singh of the severe consequences of any future serious violent convictions.

Orders