Singh v Police - [2022] NZHC 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2022-463-133

[2022] NZHC 3002

BETWEEN
JASWINDER SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 November 2022 (Heard at Rotorua)

Appearances:

S Hartley and S R Mason for Appellant D Coulson for Respondent

Judgment:

16 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

(Appeal against sentence)

Solicitors: Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga
Pollett Legal Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Tauranga

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 3002 [16 November 2022]

[1] Mr Singh pleaded guilty to possession of a methamphetamine utensil,1 reckless driving causing injury2 and causing injury while driving under the influence of drugs.3 He was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment, two years’ disqualification from holding a drivers’ licence and reparation payments by Judge Mabey KC on 17 September 2021 at the Tauranga District Court.4

[2] Mr Singh appeals his sentence of two years’ disqualification from driving on the grounds that Judge Mabey failed to consider the effect of disqualification on the appellant in the relevant circumstances. The rest of the sentence is not challenged; Mr Singh has served his sentence of imprisonment.

[3] The appeal is 12 months out of time. Leave to appeal is required but is not opposed by the Crown. I therefore grant leave.

Facts of offending

[4] On 5 February 2021 Mr Singh was driving on State Highway 2. Police observed him near the intersection of Wilson Road where he was halfway across the centre line causing incoming traffic to pull to the left and stop. He then continued driving, swerving right to left causing a truck following him to brake heavily to avoid collision. He pulled over to the shoulder of the road.

[5] Mr Singh then rejoined the flow of traffic. He accelerated and continued driving, using both the left and right lane as well as driving down the centre of the road. Several other motorists were forced to take evasive action.

[6] The victim was driving in the opposite direction. She had two children aged nine and 10 in the car. She was driving behind a small hatchback vehicle. The hatchback vehicle took evasive action upon seeing Mr Singh heading directly towards

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year imprisonment and/or a
$500 fine
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(a) and (2); maximum five years’ imprisonment or a $20,000 fine; and minimum 12 months’ disqualification.
3      Section 61(2)(a) and (3), maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or a $20,000 fine, minimum 12 months’ disqualification.
4      New Zealand Police v Singh [2021] NZDC 18671.

it by swerving to the left. The victim, upon seeing the hatchback vehicle swerve to the left, pulled to the right directly into the path of Mr Singh’s vehicle.

[7] Mr Singh hit the victim’s car in a head on collision. The parties were transported to hospital. Methamphetamine was detected in Mr Singh’s blood sample. A search of his car revealed a glass pipe…

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 Singh v Police

Details

AGLC: Singh v Police [2022] NZHC 3002
Case: [2022] NZHC 3002
Decision Date: 16 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jaswinder Singh appealed against his sentence of two years' disqualification from driving. He argued that the District Court judge failed to consider the effect of disqualification on the appellant in the relevant circumstances. The appeal was 12 months out of time but leave to appeal was granted. The High Court found that the two years' disqualification was manifestly excessive and was replaced with a disqualification term of one year and one day. The Court found that the District Court judge had incorrectly referred to excessive speed as an aggravating factor of the offending and did not consider the rehabilitative purpose of sentencing or the desirability of imposing the least penalty that would be an effective deterrent when setting the period of disqualification. The Court found that the long period of disqualification was hindering Mr Singh’s ability to consistently go to work, causing the very financial stress that was a driver of his offending. The Court found that the period of disqualification was disproportionate and was longer than offenders who had very poor driving records and low prospects of rehabilitation who engaged in similar or worse offending.

The final orders of the Court were that leave to appeal was granted, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the two years' disqualification was quashed and replaced with a disqualification term of one year and one day. The Court noted that Mr Singh was not subject to driving restrictions on bail and was not entitled to any credit.

Orders