Legal Research
Cases
Singh v Police

Singh v Police

Case [2019] NZHC 2985 15 November 2019

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-121

[2019] NZHC 2985

BETWEEN
GAGANDEEP SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 November 2019

Appearances:

A Holland for the Appellant C Piho for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 November 2019 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau, Auckland Counsel: A Holland, Auckland

SINGH v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2985 [15 November 2019]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Gagandeep Singh, pleaded guilty to a charge of male assaults female at his first appearance.1 His application to be discharged without conviction was declined.2 He now appeals that decision.

Background

[2] At the time of the offending, Mr Singh was 27 years old. He and the victim had been in a relationship for around two years.

[3] The police summary of facts states that, on 4 April 2018, Mr Singh went to the victim’s address and parked outside. The victim got into Mr Singh’s car and the two started arguing over a social media account. The argument escalated, and Mr Singh punched the victim in the right eye with a closed fist. He then drove the victim to Middlemore Hospital where she received treatment for her injuries.

[4]The District Court Judge described the victim’s injuries as follows:3

[3] She received a cut about her right eyebrow and a bruised eye which she was, at the time the summary was signed, unable to open due to swelling. I have had the benefit of also viewing photographs provided to me of the injuries sustained and it is a significant injury to the victim’s eye.

[5]Mr Singh pleaded guilty at an early stage.

District Court

[6] On 4 March 2019, Mr Singh’s application for discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) was heard in the District Court at Manukau. In assessing the application, the Judge undertook the standard three-step analysis.4

[7]First, as to the gravity of the offending, the Judge said:

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Singh [2019] NZDC 3954 [Decision on appeal].
3 At [3].
4 At [7].

[7] … I must assess the seriousness of the offending. When I look at the injuries sustained by the victim, this was no minor punch. This was a significant blow causing a cut and a significant injury to the victim’s right eye, as I say as is shown in the photograph. I therefore consider it at least of moderate seriousness.

(emphasis added)

[8]Secondly, as to the consequences of conviction, the Judge said:

[9] The first is your desire to join the New Zealand Police. Whilst the affirmation does not record it, I accept that Mr Johannson [counsel for the defendant] says that you had in fact applied to join the New Zealand Police force in 2016, the year before this incident had occurred. You have also…

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 2985
Case: [2019] NZHC 2985
Decision Date: 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gagandeep Singh appealed against the District Court's refusal to discharge him without conviction for a charge of male assaults female. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The District Court had assessed the application under the Sentencing Act 2002 and declined it, instead recording the conviction and entering a good behaviour bond. Singh contended that a discharge without conviction should have been granted because the consequences of conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The legal issues involved whether the District Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and if there was a miscarriage of justice warranting the appeal. The High Court had to determine if the District Court's decision on the disproportionality test was correct. The court examined the gravity of the offence, the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction, and whether these consequences were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The High Court found that the District Court did not err in its assessment of the gravity of the offence but disagreed with its assessment, characterising it as low to moderate. The court also accepted that the consequences of conviction for Singh's employment were a real and appreciable risk and out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and Singh was discharged without conviction.

Orders