Singh v Police - [2016] NZHC 1739

IN THE HIG H COURT O F NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REG ISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000171 [2016] NZHC 1739

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

JASON VIRENDRA SINGH Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 26 July 2016

Counsel:

R P Chambers for the Appellant
H D Benson-Pope for the Respondent

Judgment:

29 July 2016

JUDGMENT O F EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 29 July 2016 at 11.30 am, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Counse l: R P Chambers, Auckland

Solic itors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland

SINGH v POLICE [2016] NZHC 1739 [ 29 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Singh pleaded guilty to 23 charges for a spree of burglary related offending. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment i n the District Court. 1 He appeals that sentence on the grounds that the starti ng point of five years’ imprisonment adopted by the Judge was too hi gh, and the discount given for his personal miti gati ng factors was inadequate.

Background

[2] Mr Singh pleaded guilty to the following char ges: (a) Eight charges of burglary;2
(b) Ten charges of using a document for a pecuniary advantage; 3

(c) Two charges of receiving;4

(d) One charge of theft;5

(e) One charge of possession of i nstr uments for burglary; 6 and

(f) One char ge of possession of utensils for consumption of controlled drugs.7

[3] The offendi ng giving rise to the charges occurred between 13 September

2015 and 8 October 2015. Over this period, Mr Singh burgled eight different residential addresses, stole items out of a car parked in an enclosed yard, pawned a
number of items of property, and made various purchases using stolen bank cards.

1       Police v Singh [2016] NZDC 10489.
2       Crimes Act 1961, s 231. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
3       Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4       Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247. Maximum penalty one year ’s imprisonment.
5       Crimes Act 1961, s 223(d). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
6       Summary Offences Act 1981, s 14. Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000
fine.
7       Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and 13(3). Maximum penalty one year ’s imprisonment or
a $500 fine.

[4] Four of the eight burglaries were committed at ni ght. In three of these the victims were at home and asleep. Two victims were also present duri ng another burglary committed in the dayti me.

[5] Various items were taken during these burglaries, including guitars, video cameras, laptops, televisions, jewellery and other electronic items. Items valui ng approxi mately $10,000 were taken by Mr Singh duri ng one of the bur glaries, with the total value of property taken amounting to approxi mately $26,500.

[6] Many of the items stolen by Mr Si ngh were subsequently paw ned, either the next day or within a week of being stolen. The two receiving char ges…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 1739
Decision Date: 29 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Singh was convicted of multiple burglary, theft, and receiving charges, and he appealed against his sentence of three years' imprisonment. Singh argued that the District Court judge had erred in the starting point of five years' imprisonment and the discount for personal mitigating factors. The High Court found that while the starting point was higher than appropriate, the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the appropriate starting point to be three years and six months' imprisonment for the burglary offences and an uplift of 12 months for the other offences. The court found that a discount of six months for the mitigating factors was appropriate, resulting in an end sentence of 34.5 months, which was not substantially different from the District Court's sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the District Court judge had not erred materially in the sentence imposed on Singh. While the starting point was higher than appropriate, the end sentence, taking into account the mitigating factors, was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the appropriate starting point was three years and six months' imprisonment for the burglary offences and an uplift of 12 months for the other offences. The court found that a discount of six months for the mitigating factors was appropriate, resulting in an end sentence of 34.5 months, which was not substantially different from the District Court's sentence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders