R v Tangira
[2025] NZHC 2118
•31 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2023-090-5469
[2025] NZHC 2118
THE KING v
LORENZO TANGIRA
Hearing: 31 July 2025 Appearances:
A McClintock and E Kerr for Crown V Feyen and M Edgar for Defendant
Sentenced:
31 July 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J
Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Counsel: V Feyen/M Edgar/H Aitken, Auckland Copy to: Media (C Kapitan, C Owen and S Braunias)
R v TANGIRA [2025] NZHC 2118 [31 July 2025]
[1] Lorenzo Tangira, you are before the Court for sentence on the charge of murder. You pleaded guilty to the murder of Ramandeep Singh on the morning that your jury trial was scheduled to commence.
[2] The sentence for murder in your case is life imprisonment. The only issue for the Court this morning is the length of the minimum non-parole period. But first I set out the facts surrounding your offending from the agreed summary of facts.
[3] On 18 December 2023, the day he was murdered, Ramandeep Singh was only 25 years old. He was working as an Armourguard security guard. That was a second job for him which he had taken in order to supplement his income. At the time you were about 26 years old. Your co-defendant, who was found unfit to stand trial but was also involved in the assault during which Mr Singh was killed, was 17 years old. Neither of you had any previous dealings with the deceased, Mr Singh.
[4] On the evening of 17 December 2023, you and your co-accused, together with others, had been drinking at a home in Reverie Place, Massey. You became heavily intoxicated and affected by alcohol and late in the evening, you and your co-accused and other associates went to the Royal Reserve on Beauchamp Drive in Massey.
[5] One of Mr Singh’s duties that evening as a security officer was to lock up Royal Reserve. He drove his car to the Reserve. There was an altercation between your co- accused and Mr Singh and you became involved. You grabbed Mr Singh by the rear of his Hi-Vis vest and swung him around and proceeded to forcefully punch him repeatedly in the face. As a result Mr Singh fell to the ground and began bleeding from his facial injuries. I note here that you are a much bigger man physically than Mr Singh, who was a small man. He weighed only 46 kgs at the time. Mr Tangira, you are a physically imposing man.
[6] Mr Singh managed to get up and attempted to escape by getting inside his car. Your co-accused kicked at the driver’s windows and proceeded to jump on the bonnet of the car. You remained involved. In your pursuit of Mr Singh during the incident your hand became shut in the door of the car and was injured, causing it to bleed. After this you tried to reach Mr Singh through the back of the car. Mr Singh was eventually
pulled from his car where he had sought refuge and the assault against him by both continued. Your co-accused continued punching, kicking and stomping on Mr Singh, causing him severe injuries to his face, neck and head. The combination of injuries inflicted upon Mr Singh was ultimately fatal.
[7] During the attack Mr Singh had tried to seek assistance and called out for help. Nearby residents were alerted by the noise of the assault and called Police. You and your co-accused left the Reserve before the Police arrived.
[8] Mr Singh’s body had been dragged to an area in the bushes near his vehicle. His pants and underwear were pulled off during the altercation leaving him exposed from the waist down. His phone and a bag containing his driver’s licence and security identification form were also taken.
[9] When the Police did attend shortly after they noticed Mr Singh’s Armourguard car had a shattered windscreen, several dents on the bonnet and obvious blood staining on the exterior. They found Mr Singh’s body nearby.
[10] Mr Singh had sustained significant injuries across his body, predominantly to his head and neck area. His face was covered in blood and blood was seen coming out of his mouth. The Police made attempts to resuscitate Mr Singh but he was pronounced dead at the scene.
[11] The post-mortem revealed Mr Singh had sustained significant brain damage. His top and bottom jaw were broken in several places, his teeth were broken and several knocked out. Mr Singh also sustained a fractured skull, cheek bones, and fractured orbital sockets. Footwear impressions showed kicking and stomping type damage to his face, throat and neck. There were also injuries showing grazing on both his knees and his back.
[12] A short time following the incident, Police attended the property at Reverie Place. You were found there and arrested. Police observed blood stains throughout the property which later were identified as belonging to you. When you were spoken
to by the Police you accepted you were at the Reserve and that you had punched Mr Singh in the face.
[13] In sentencing you Mr Tangira the Court is directed to have regard to the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002. The particularly relevant purposes in your case are:
(a)to hold you accountable for the killing of Mr Singh and the harm done to the community by such violent offending;
(b)to denounce such conduct and to deter you and others from committing similar offending;
(c)to provide for the interests of the victims of the offending, and particularly the family of Mr Singh. The victim impact statements have made it clear the effect your offending has had and continues to have on them.
[14] Given your propensity for violence, which is evident from your previous convictions for violence, and the violence inflicted in this case, there is also the need to protect the community from you.
[15] In the circumstances of this offending the consideration of your rehabilitation and reintegration into society when you may ultimately be released from prison are of secondary importance.
[16] The relevant principles are the gravity of the offending, including your degree of culpability. The Court is also required to take into account the seriousness of the offence, which as murder, is the most serious of the cases the Court deals with.
[17] As I said at the outset, the sentence will be life imprisonment. There can be no suggestion a sentence other than life imprisonment would be appropriate or that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. Ms Feyen has responsibly and realistically acknowledged that on your behalf. The issue for the Court is the minimum non-parole period.
[18] The Crown submits a starting point for the minimum non-parole period should be 15 years. It accepts some reduction for your guilty plea is appropriate and some consideration for your personal circumstances and background is available.
[19] On your behalf Ms Feyen submitted a starting point of between 11 and 13 years would adequately reflect your involvement as she describes it, as a secondary participant in the assault, and that after deductions for your guilty plea, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation and your personal circumstances, including your deprived background, an end minimum non-parole period of around 11 years would be appropriate.
[20] While the Crown does not submit s 104 of the Sentencing Act is engaged, it is still for the Court to determine if that section is engaged. If the Court were to find certain circumstances applied to the murder of Mr Singh then it must apply a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years unless otherwise satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In the present case, looking at the offending, the two factors that potentially would engage s 104 are whether the murder was committed with a high level of brutality or callousness and/or Mr Singh was particularly vulnerable because of his size.
[21] While Mr Singh was much smaller than you, I do not consider it can be said he was particularly vulnerable as that phrase is understood in s 104 just because of that. However, and while all murders can be described as brutal, I do consider that the murder of Mr Singh was committed with a high level of brutality and callousness. The sheer extent of the injuries to his face and head and the state he was left in confirm the murder was particularly brutal and callous. So I consider s 104 is engaged. The issue for the Court is whether it would be manifestly unjust to apply a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years to you, given your role in that murder.
[22] I test the matter by considering the appropriate minimum non-parole period under s 103. In that regard, I note the following aggravating features.
[23] The killing of Mr Singh was unprovoked. He was there doing his job. You had no contact with him beforehand. It was a senseless and very bad example of the
use of extreme violence against a decent young man who was just doing his job. It involved a prolonged and gratuitous attack upon Mr Singh despite his attempts to call for help and to escape. I agree with the Crown submission that you and your co- accused relentlessly pursued the attack on him. You had a number of opportunities to stop the assault or to disengage from it, but you carried on. You dragged Mr Singh from his car when he had sought refuge there and to escape. Apart from the violence inflicted on him, as noted, Mr Singh also endured the indignity of having his trousers and underwear pulled from his body and then having his body dragged towards the bushes. Next, the attack obviously involved a significant number of punches, and kicks and stomping to Mr Singh’s head and face area as confirmed by the post-mortem report. I accept that the agreed summary attributes the kicking and stomping to your co-accused but you also punched Mr Singh to the head and you were there and there were two of you attacking him. I accept the summary of facts that you pleaded guilty to reflects your co-accused may have been responsible for the most significant attacks to Mr Singh but nevertheless you were an active participant. Your continued involvement would no doubt have encouraged your co-accused.
[24] The final aggravating feature is Mr Singh’s situation. While I have not found him to have been particularly vulnerable in terms of s 104, compared to you, as noted, he was of a very slight build. That, combined with the fact he was working alone as a security guard in an isolated car park meant he had no assistance and no chance to defend himself.
[25]There are no mitigating features to the offending.
[26] Ms Feyen has submitted as I have noted that your co-accused inflicted the fatal injuries. I note the Crown position is that there is no evidence of that given your co- accused’s shoes were burned. However, I must deal with the matter on the basis of the summary of facts and I do accept, as Ms Feyen has pointed out, that the summary of facts records that your co-accused continued punching, kicking and stomping on Mr Singh causing severe injuries to his face, neck and head.
[27] Notwithstanding that, I do not consider in such a gratuitous sustained and vicious attack as the present it is appropriate to seek to make fine distinctions between the roles of the two active participants.
[28] As an aside, I also note that in some of the reports before the Court it is suggested you were severely affected by alcohol. That is no excuse. You obviously knew what you were doing when you were assaulting Mr Singh.
[29] I have considered the cases referred to by both counsel.1 The violence involved in the present case was close to that used against the victims in R v Maa and R v Mete, even though no weapon was used in the attack on Mr Singh. Ms Feyen has referred to and relied on the cases of R v MacLaughlin and R v Renata.2 In the case of Mr MacLaughlin he was the sole offender which I accept, but in that case, reading it, the Judge was clearly influenced by the fact Mr MacLaughlin was a relatively young man and it was his first offence for violence. Similarly, the age of the offender was a particularly relevant factor in Renata. Your case is different. The fact of the attack on Mr Singh was unprovoked, the extreme violence used by the two of you in combination on an effectively defenceless young man, the length of the assault and the indignity to his body are all relevant features of the offending. Each case must ultimately turn on its own facts.
[30] Having regard to those cases but looking at and considering the circumstances of the present case, and particularly your culpability as disclosed by the agreed summary of facts, and before consideration of your guilty plea, I consider the appropriate minimum non-parole period would be 15 years. I accept that your limited culpability and guilty plea support a conclusion it would be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum non-parole period of 17 years or more.
[31]I then turn to your personal aggravating and mitigating factors.
1 R v Maa [2021] NZHC 3367; R v Maa [2021] NZHC 1855; R v Mete [2020] NZHC 1573;
R v Ford [2020] NZHC 2579; and R v Hamiora HC Rotorua CRI-2005-063-3367, 24 November 2006.
2 R v MacLaughlin HC Auckland CRI-2004-092-4430, 11 October 2005; and R v Renata [2022] NZHC 2745.
[32] I note you have a substantial number of previous convictions including several convictions for violence, including family violence, and convictions for aggravated robbery. Although an uplift would be open to the Court for those previous convictions for violence which suggest a propensity for violence, I decline to do so having regard to your personal circumstances as disclosed in the report that Ms Feyen has put before the Court.
[33] The principal mitigating factor is your guilty plea. However that guilty plea was made on the first day of your scheduled trial and in the face of a strong Crown case, which included forensic evidence placing you at the scene and your blood stains. A discount of nine months is appropriate for the guilty plea in all the circumstances.
[34] Ms Feyen has argued for discounts for remorse and rehabilitation. You have written a letter to the Court in which you express remorse. The report Ms Feyen obtained on your behalf also suggests some remorse. However the pre-sentence report writer notes that while it would be unfair to come to a finite conclusion, no real empathy or deeply felt remorse was evident in the interview with you. I have read and considered your letter. I consider your expressions of remorse and regret in it to be self-serving and for the purposes of sentence. I do not accept them as genuine or as warranting any reduction from sentence.
[35] As to the prospects of rehabilitation, as I noted in the circumstances of this case your rehabilitation must be a secondary consideration. Further, you have had opportunities to change your life and lifestyle in the past when the various earlier sentences were imposed on you but you failed to take them up.
[36] I accept you came from a dysfunctional family and you were subjected to undue violence by your father which has impacted your outlook on appropriate behaviour. Violence of one sort or another is something you have grown up with and learned to normalise. But on any view of it Mr Tangira you must have known the violence involved in the killing of Mr Singh was extreme and unacceptable. I accept however, looking at that report, that your disadvantaged background supports a further reduction of six months.
[37] Mr Tangira please stand. For the murder of Ramandeep Singh you are sentenced to life imprisonment. You are to serve a minimum non-parole period of 13 years, nine months. Stand down.
Venning J