Singh v Police - [2019] NZHC 3001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-0433

[2019] NZHC 3001

BETWEEN
NAVJOT SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Date of hearing: 18 November 2019

Appearances:

H G de Groot for Mr Singh G J Fraser for the respondent

Date of judgment:

18 November 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Hunter de Groot, Matai Chambers, Auckland Georgiana Fraser, Meredith Connell, Auckland

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3001 [18 November 2019]

[1] Navjot Singh appeals his sentence of eight months’ home detention imposed by Judge N R Dawson in the District Court at Auckland on 20 September 2019,1 following Mr Singh’s guilty plea to charges of dishonest use of a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage,2 and obtaining property by deception.3

Background

—offending

[2] Mr Singh was employed by an architecture firm as its information technology manager in 2017. Several cheque forms were taken from the firm’s office over the Christmas break. On 8 and 9 February 2018, a co-offender registered a company and opened a bank account in its name. On 21 February 2018, one of the firm’s cheques was made out to the company for $80,000, forging the firm’s office manager’s signature. Mr Singh presented the cheque for payment to the company’s account on 22 February 2018. But the office manager noticed the withdrawal and, recognising the company was not one of the firm’s suppliers, instructed the bank to reverse the payment.

[3] On 31 May 2018, Mr Singh’s employment by the firm was terminated. On 10 August 2018, Mr Singh went to a computer shop in Auckland. He purchased a computer (valued at $2,875) on the firm’s account, using a purchase order number he previously was authorised to use as its employee.

—District Court decision

[4] I note Mr Singh initially declined to sign the consent required for an electronically monitored sentence, because he would lose his new employment. Judge Dawson advised, unless he consented, he would be sentenced to imprisonment. Sentencing was adjourned to allow Mr Singh to sign the necessary documents.

[5] Judge Dawson treated the dishonest use of a document charge as the lead offending, justifying a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. He uplifted that by

1      Police v Singh [2019] NZDC 19096.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(a).
3      Sections 240(1)(a) and 241(a).

two months for the obtaining property by deception charge, taking into account the totality principle. From the adjusted 20-month starting point, the Judge deducted one month for remorse (despite querying the extent of Mr Singh’s remorse)4 and a further three months to account for Mr Singh’s guilty plea, bringing the sentence to 16 months’ imprisonment.

[6] The Judge commuted the sentence to eight months’ home detention,5 noting there was no actual loss to the firm due to the vigilance of its office manager. The Judge applied the conditions listed in the probation report and added the additional condition Mr Singh be permitted 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 Singh v Police

Details

AGLC: Singh v Police [2019] NZHC 3001
Case: [2019] NZHC 3001
Decision Date: 18 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Navjot Singh, the appellant, sought to appeal his sentence of eight months' home detention imposed by the District Court at Auckland on 20 September 2019, following his guilty plea to charges of dishonest use of a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage and obtaining property by deception. Mr Singh's employment as an information technology manager for an architecture firm involved taking several cheque forms from the firm's office during a holiday period. A co-offender registered a company, opened a bank account in its name, and forged the firm's office manager's signature on a cheque made out to the company for $80,000. Mr Singh presented the cheque for payment to the company's account, but the office manager noticed the withdrawal, recognised the company was not one of the firm's suppliers, and instructed the bank to reverse the payment. Subsequently, Mr Singh's employment was terminated. The District Court Judge, N R Dawson, treated the dishonest use of a document charge as the lead offending, justifying a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment. The Judge uplifted that by two months for the obtaining property by deception charge, taking into account the totality principle. The Judge deducted one month for remorse and a further three months to account for Mr Singh's guilty plea, bringing the sentence to 16 months' imprisonment. The Judge commuted the sentence to eight months' home detention, noting there was no actual loss to the firm due to the vigilance of its office manager. The sentence was suspended until 26 September 2019 to allow Mr Singh to attend a work trip to Wellington. A reparation order of $2,875 to the firm was confirmed. The court held that the appeal was dismissed. The sentence appeal was not the appropriate forum to deal with Mr Singh's concerns. The standard conditions of home detention are set out in s 80C(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002. An offender may leave the home detention residence to engage in employment, but only with approval of a probation officer. Mr Singh's problem is not with the sentence itself, but its application by the probation officer. The end sentence of eight months' home detention does not fall outside of the acceptable range; the judge's 20-month starting point is very comparable to those for similar offending. As to Mr Singh's employment difficulties, Mr Singh's probation officer is supportive of his employment, but "only in the Auckland region due to the nature of his sentence". There is no suggestion Mr Singh would be unable to obtain another position within the IT industry, not requiring travel. Difficulties in subsequent employment are a natural consequence of such offending; the end sentence of eight months' home detention is not manifestly excessive.

Orders