Appearances: R M A McCoubrey and F M T Culliney for the Crown
R M Mansfield for the Defendant, Daljit Singh
S J Bonnar for the Defendant, Gurinder Atwal
A J Maxwell-Scott for the Defendant, Mandeep Singh
B L Sellars for the Defendant, Virender Singh
M I Koya for the Defendant, Paramjit Singh
J F Mather for the Defendant, Malkeet Singh

Judgment: 19 February 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J

R v SINGH & ORS [2014] NZHC 209 [19 February 2014]

REMINDER:

Before I commence, members of the press who are present, could I remind you that there are suppression orders in place in respect of the names of the electors I will be referring to during the course of my sentencing remarks.

[1] Mr Daljit Singh, Mr Gurinder Atwal, Mr Mandeep Singh, Mr Virender Singh, Mr Paramjit Singh and Mr Malkeet Singh, you appear for sentence today having each been convicted of charges of causing other people to use, deal with, or act upon forged documents as if they were genuine when you each knew they were forged. That is an offence against s 257(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum
sentence is 10 years imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Daljit Singh, you were convicted of two counts. Mr Atwal, you were convicted of 13 counts. Mr Virender Singh, you were convicted of one count. Mr Paramjit Singh, you were convicted of one count. Mr Mandeep Singh, you were convicted of one count and Mr Malkeet Singh, you were convicted of six counts.

Facts

[3] The offending occurred from July to August 2010. Mr Daljit Singh was running for election as a board member on the Otara - Papatoetoe Local Board – Papatoetoe sub-division. In August 2010, the Electoral Enrolment Centre (EEC) received information relating to irregularities in relation to enrolments to vote in the Papatoetoe ward. The EEC’s audit of new enrolments and change of address applications revealed that multiple persons were residing at the same addresses. Some voters had more than one Enrolment to Vote Application (ROE1) form with each showing different addresses.

[4] To complete an ROE1 form online, an elector registers on the EEC website and must complete personal details including date of birth, residential address, and optional postal address and contact phone details. Once the details are completed the ROE1 form is downloaded and printed out by the elector. Alternatively, the completed ROE1 form can be printed out by the EEC and sent by post to the elector. In either case the elector must then sign and date the form and send it to the EEC. On receipt of the form, the EEC staff check the details, process the form, date stamp it and enter…

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 209
Case: [2014] NZHC 209
Decision Date: 19 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Singh was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. Six individuals were convicted of electoral fraud, specifically causing others to use, deal with, or act upon forged documents as if they were genuine when they knew they were forged, contrary to section 257(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum sentence for this offence is 10 years imprisonment. Daljit Singh was convicted of two counts, Gurinder Atwal of 13 counts, Virender Singh of one count, Paramjit Singh of one count, Mandeep Singh of one count, and Malkeet Singh of six counts. The offending occurred between July and August 2010, when the defendants were involved in obtaining details of electors who did not reside in the Papatoetoe ward and completing enrolment forms in their names, providing addresses for them in the Papatoetoe ward, and then sending the forms back to the Electoral Enrolment Centre with altered details and forged signatures. The Electoral Commission conducted an audit of new enrolments and change of address applications, which revealed irregularities and led to the New Zealand Police investigating and prosecuting the defendants.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding the defendants accountable for harm done to the community, promoting in them a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement of that harm, denouncing their conduct, and deterring them and others from committing similar offences. The court also took into account the context of the offending, which was influenced by cultural practices within the defendants' community. The Crown argued that the offending was serious and undermined the public's trust in the electoral system, while the defence submitted that the offending was the lowest possible level of political involvement and arose from misguided loyalty and a desire to support and improve the community.

After considering the submissions from both the Crown and the defence, the court set starting points for each defendant, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors of both the offending and the offenders. The court then adjusted the starting points to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors personal to each defendant. The court also considered relevant case law, including cases of electoral fraud from overseas.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendants to various combinations of community detention and community work, with the specific sentences varying depending on the individual circumstances of each defendant. The court declined to grant discharges without conviction for any of the defendants, finding that the consequences of conviction would not be out of all proportion to the gravity of their offending.

Orders