Sidhu v The King - [2025] NZCA 183

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA785/2023
[2025] NZCA 183

BETWEEN	SARVJEET SIDHU Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	25 March 2025
Court:	Ellis, Dunningham and Harvey JJ
Counsel:	P K Hamlin for Appellant E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	21 May 2025 at 1.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to adduce further evidence is declined.
BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

A week prior to trial, Sarvjeet Sidhu pleaded guilty to attempting to murder Harnek Singh, a prominent talk show host and YouTuber. Harnek Singh’s polarising views on politics and the Sikh religion were strongly opposed by Mr Sidhu and other members of the Sikh temple in East Tāmaki.
On 28 November 2023, Woolford J sentenced Mr Sidhu to nine and a half years’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Sidhu appeals his sentence on the grounds that the starting point was too high and the Judge did not take into account all available personal discounts.

The offending

[1]R v Sidhu [2023] NZHC 3406 [judgment under appeal] at [60].

Mr Sidhu attended the Sikh temple in East Tāmaki with his co-offenders, one of whom, Gurinderpal Brar, was the founder and spiritual leader of the temple. Mr Brar had significant influence over the members of the temple, including Mr Sidhu and his co-offenders. Some members believed orders from Mr Brar to be akin to orders from God.
Mr Brar was angry with Harnek Singh’s commentary on politics and the Sikh religion. He sought assistance from members of his inner circle at the temple to kill Harnek Singh. Mr Brar procured weapons, including knives, and stolen registration plates for the attack.
On 23 December 2020, Mr Brar gave the weapons and stolen registration plates to Mr Sidhu and one of his co-offenders, Jaspal Singh. Mr Brar told them to do the job properly and that they had been chosen by God.
At about 6.50 pm that same day, Mr Sidhu and two of his co-offenders parked outside Harnek Singh’s temple in a black Ford Ranger, which had been fitted with the stolen registration plates, and waited for Harnek Singh to finish work. He left the temple shortly after 10 pm. Mr Sidhu and his two co-offenders followed him in the Ford Ranger. They were then joined by another co-offender in a white Toyota HiAce van and two other co-offenders in a white Toyota Prius. Harnek Singh did not notice the three vehicles following him and continued driving to his home. Just before he could pull into his driveway, the Toyota HiAce van was used to ram his vehicle off the road. He came to a stop with the Ford Ranger on one side and the Toyota Hi Ace van on the other.
Mr Sidhu and his two co-offenders got out of the Ford Ranger and began their attack on Harnek Singh. They smashed the driver window and attacked him through it, using knives to…

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 Sidhu v The King

Details

AGLC: Sidhu v The King [2025] NZCA 183
Case: [2025] NZCA 183
Decision Date: 21 May 2025 at 1.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sidhu v The King involved an appeal by Sarvjeet Sidhu against his sentence for the attempted murder of Harnek Singh, a talk show host and YouTuber. Sidhu was sentenced to nine and a half years in prison, and he appealed on the grounds that the starting point was too high and the judge did not take into account all available personal discounts. Sidhu's counsel argued that the starting point was too high because it did not take into account Sidhu's lesser involvement compared to his co-offender, Jaspal Singh. The Court of Appeal held that the starting point was appropriate, taking into account the various aggravating features of the offending and the fact that Sidhu's role was comparable with that of Jaspal Singh. The Court also held that the judge was entitled to decline discounts for previous good character, remorse, and the impact of imprisonment on Sidhu's family. The Court was satisfied that the discount of 10 per cent was well within range, having regard to the discounts afforded both to the offender in the leading case of Berkland v R and to the co-offenders in the present case. The appeal against sentence was dismissed on all grounds.

Orders