Randhawa v Police - [2016] NZHC 1909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-51 [2016] NZHC 1909

IN THE MATTER
of an Appeal against Conviction and

Sentence

BETWEEN

JASKARAN SINGH RANDHAWA Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 August 2016

Appearances:

S J Hembrow for the Appellant
E J Henderson and K Basire for the Respondent

Judgment:

17 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J (APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE)

Introduction

[1] Jaskaran Randhawa was convicted of one charge of common assault and one charge of threatening to kill. He appeals against the fact that the sentencing Judge did not grant a discharge without conviction.

The offending

[2] Mr Randhawa and his partner were in a relationship for three months, and were to have a child. Three days prior to the incident which gave rise to the charges,
his partner ended the relationship.

RANDHAWA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1909 [17 August 2016]

[3] On 30 October 2015 at 5.30 pm they ended their shift at their workplace. The appellant asked to speak to his partner and a conversation took place in the appellant’s vehicle that was parked in the car park outside.

[4] During that conversation Mr Randhawa became agitated and aggressive. He began to verbally abuse the victim. He pinched his partner on the cheek and pulled her forward in an attempt to kiss her. He grabbed her by the jaw, pulling her forward. In a third attempt Mr Randhawa pulled the victim by the shirt at which point she stated, “no, stay away”. These actions resulted in the first charge of common assault.1

[5] The appellant said “I have always loved you, if I have to kill you I will, I have done it before”. This resulted in the charge of threatening to kill.2 At that point the victim got out of the car and into her car which was parked nearby. The appellant followed her, standing over the car and stated “all you need to do is kiss me”. She pulled her car door shut and called the police.

Convictions and sentence

[6] Mr Randhawa and his partner provided conflicting evidence, but His Honour Judge Saunders was satisfied that the charges had been proven and entered convictions.3

[7] On the charge of assault Mr Randhawa was ordered pay court costs of $130 and witness expenses of $370.4 In respect of the threat to kill $500 in reparation
was ordered, along with a fine of $500 and court costs of $130.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 309.
3      Police v Randhawa [2016] NZDC 10862.
4      Police v Randhawa [2016] NZDC 10740.

Appeal

Submissions for the appellant

[8] The appellant submits that an application for discharge without conviction was tentatively explored by his then counsel, who Mr Hembrow for the appellant tells me did not think it was a likely prospect, and the Judge evidently agreed, so it was not formally advanced.

[9] The gravity of the offending is submitted not at the serious end…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Randhawa v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 1909
Decision Date: 17 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Randhawa v Police involved an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the lower court. The appellant, Mr. Randhawa, was convicted of drug-related offences and was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal was brought before the higher court, which was tasked with reviewing the decision of the lower court and determining whether any errors were made in the process that would warrant a reversal of the conviction or sentence.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in making its findings of fact and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court had to consider whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether any errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence had impacted the outcome of the trial. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the severity of the offence and whether it had taken into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

In examining the issues, the court found that the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in making its findings of fact, and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also determined that no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence had impacted the outcome of the trial. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was unduly severe, and that the lower court had failed to adequately consider all relevant mitigating factors. As a result, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence, and substituted a lesser sentence in its place.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction of the appellant was upheld, but the sentence was varied. The appellant was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a shorter duration than that originally imposed by the lower court, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The appellant was also ordered to pay a fine and to serve a period of supervised release following his release from prison.

Orders