R v Singh-Kang - [2014] NZHC 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-019-008066 [2014] NZHC 126

THE QUEEN

v

JASKIRT SINGH-KANG

Hearing: 5 February 2014

Counsel: RG Douch for the Crown
S Nepe for Defendant

Judgment: 5 February 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. S Nepe, Hamilton.

R v SINGH-KANG [2014] NZHC 126 [5 February 2014]

Introduction

[1] Jaskirt Singh-Kang, you appear today for sentence. You have pleaded guilty to three counts. Count one is a charge of unlawfully detaining the victim without his consent with the intent of causing him to be confined (kidnapping). Count three is injuring the victim with intent to injure, and count five is assault using a chainsaw as a weapon.

[2] There are two other counts, counts two and four. The Crown asks me to discharge you on those counts. I am prepared to do so. You are discharged on counts two and four.

[3] I have given you a stage one three strikes warning.

Facts

[4] So I turn to the sentence. The facts are not in dispute. The victim was a friend of yours. You had a motor vehicle that was in his possession. While it was in his possession the victim sold it. You considered that he was quite wrong to do so. You registered a complaint about the missing vehicle and considered that the victim had, in selling the car, stolen it from you.

[5] At about 10.30 pm on Friday, 14 December 2012, you and the two other defendants were travelling in a car together in Huntly when you saw the victim. The two persons in the car were Ricky Hona and Trevor Smith. Mr Hona has since entered pleas of guilty. Mr Smith goes to trial next week.

[6] The victim appears to have realised that you were in the car and to have been scared that you might attack him. He ran away and hid. There was then a sequence of events set out in the summary of facts where he hid in places and you and the co- defendants looked for him. You in fact saw him and began chasing him.

[7] Ultimately you caught up with him and with your two co-defendants you forced him into the vehicle. Once inside the vehicle all three of you began punching and kicking him. Mr Smith drove the vehicle away. You drove with the victim to a

picnic area where you pulled him out of the vehicle. All three of you then began punching, kicking and stomping on him. Mr Smith took a chainsaw from the boot of the vehicle. He started up that chainsaw and gave it to you, Mr Singh-Kang. You displayed the running chainsaw close to the victim’s neck and head said “do you think I’m all shit”. The chainsaw was then turned off and put back in the boot. You and Mr Hona then stomped on the victim one more time and told him not to tell the Police. All three of you…

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-Kang

Details

AGLC: R v Singh-Kang [2014] NZHC 126
Case: [2014] NZHC 126
Decision Date: 5 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Singh-Kang involves the sentencing of Jaskirt Singh-Kang, who pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping, injuring with intent, and assault using a chainsaw as a weapon. The court discharged Singh-Kang on two other counts and issued a three strikes warning. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering various mitigating factors, and deciding between home detention and community detention as the suitable penalty. The court assessed the culpability of Singh-Kang's actions and compared them to similar cases, ultimately determining a starting point of three years and three months' imprisonment. The court also considered personal factors such as Singh-Kang's age, employment status, and good character, which led to a 20% discount for each of these factors. After applying the discounts, the court determined that a sentence of 23 months' imprisonment was appropriate. However, the court decided that home detention would be a suitable penalty due to Singh-Kang's youth, good prospects, and the possibility of maintaining employment without electronic monitoring. The court imposed a sentence of 11 months' home detention with specific conditions, including residing at a designated address, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, and participating in various treatment programs.

Final orders: Jaskirt Singh-Kang was sentenced to 11 months' home detention with the specified conditions. The sentences on all three counts were to be concurrent.

Orders