Singh v Police

[2017] NZHC 2963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-000261 [2017] NZHC 2963

BETWEEN

MANPREET SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	27 November 2017
Appearances:	A Beach for the Appellant D S Houghton for the Respondent
Judgment:	27 November 2017
Reasons:	30 November 2017

REASONS JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:

Tony Beach, Barrister, Auckland

Meredith Connell, Auckland

MANPREET SINGH v NZ POLICE [2017] NZHC 2963 [27 November 2017]

Introduction

[1]      The appellant, Mr Manpreet Singh, pleaded guilty to giving false details as to his identity1  and dishonestly using a document for a pecuniary advantage.2     The District Court declined his application for a discharge without conviction.  He was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work and required to pay reparation of $500.

[2]      The notes of the District Court decision are unavailable. Pursuant to a Minute by Lang J on 16 August 2017, the High Court is now to determine the application for discharge without conviction afresh.

[3]      On 27 November 2017, I dismissed the appeal against refusal of Mr Singh’s application for discharge. These are my reasons.

Background

The offending

[4]      The  appellant,  Mr  Manpreet  Singh,  and  the  victim  of  his  offending,

Mr Bikramjit Singh, share the same last name.  Because of the potential confusion between the two, I shall refer throughout to Mr Manpreet Singh as the appellant and

Mr Bikramjit Singh by his first name.

[5]      The appellant and Bikramjit knew each other because Bikramjit and his wife stayed in the appellant’s flat from July 2016 to October 2016, paying him rent.

[6]      At  9.00  pm  on  18  November  2016,  the  appellant  was  driving  along

Wellesley Street in Auckland.

[7]      A police officer observed the appellant failing to comply with a red traffic signal. The officer stopped the appellant. When spoken to by the officer, the appellant gave Bikramjit’s name and a false date of birth.  The appellant provided the officer

with Bikramjit’s Indian driver’s licence and said that the person pictured on the licence

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 44; maximum penalty a fine of $10,000.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

was him. There is no dispute that Bikramjit had not given the appellant permission to use his licence.

[8]      The appellant’s evidence is that he panicked when the police pulled him over. He feared loss of his licence due to his accumulation of demerit points and made a “terrible error of judgment” in giving Police his flatmate’s licence and details.

[9]      The appellant had two people with him in his car.  When asked by the officer if he was an Uber driver, the appellant said “no”, but the officer then saw the people leave the car and give him $10.  In evidence, the appellant said they were friends of his parents. The appellant was in fact a taxi driver at that time.

[10]     The appellant’s offending came to light when  Bikramjit received  a letter advising him of a fine.…