Singh v Police - [2016] NZHC 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-454-13 [2016] NZHC 543

BETWEEN
RAVINDRA PAL SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 October 2015

Counsel:

R D Mulgan for Appellant
E M Fitzherbert for Respondent

Judgment:

31 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

This judgment was delivered by me at
3:00pm on 31 March 2016

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 543 [31 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Singh, a flight instructor,1 was convicted in the District Court on three charges of assault.2 Two convictions under the Crimes Act 1961 were entered following a trial. The third conviction, under the Summary Offences Act 1981, was entered following a guilty plea.

[2] This is an appeal against conviction.

Procedural background

[3] As described by Mr Mulgan, counsel for the appellant, the procedural background has followed an unusually tortuous course. The trial was heard over four days between 29 October and 21 December 2012. The appeal process has been similarly drawn out. On 22 October 2013 a hearing of Mr Singh’s appeal commenced with Mr Singh acting for himself. When it became apparent that Mr Singh was relying on evidence that had not been before the District Court the Judge adjourned the appeal to permit Mr Singh to take the necessary steps to adduce fresh evidence.

[4] Various issues about the admission of fresh evidence led to that hearing being further adjourned and further delays. On 1 December 2014 Dobson J gave judgment dismissing Mr Singh’s application to adduce fresh evidence.3

[5] The appeals against the two Crimes Act convictions were set down for hearing on 28 October 2015. At the hearing one of the appeals was abandoned.

[6] Consequently, although the written submissions were directed to Mr Singh’s
appeal against two convictions for assault on two complainants the appeal proceeded only in respect of the conviction for assault on Mr Illyas Valiyapeediyekal.

1      At the time of the alleged assaults Mr Singh was also the director of the Wings Flight Training
Academy, an aviation training school that closed in December 2011.
2      Police v Singh DC Palmerston North CRI-2011-054-3470, 21 December 2012.
3      Singh v Police [2014] NZHC 3039.

Factual background

[7] Because the appeal rests largely on the argument that what was alleged against Mr Singh could not feasibly have occurred it is necessary to set out in some detail the context in which the assault took place.

[8] Mr Valiyapeediyekal was studying for a commercial pilot licence. On

25 June 2011 Mr Singh was flying with Mr Valiyapeediyekal to determine if he could fly solo. Mr Valiyapeediyekal was doing a number of circuits touching down briefly and taking off again, a manoeuvre referred to as “touch and go”.

[9] Mr Singh was shouting “speed and centre line, speed and centre line”4 during the flight. Mr Valiyapeediyekal said Mr Singh was not happy with his flying and was shouting at him. Mr Valiyapeediyekal looked at Mr Singh. Mr Singh suddenly slapped him on the side…

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 [2016] NZHC 543
Case: [2016] NZHC 543
Decision Date: 31 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Mr Singh, a flight instructor, against his convictions for assault. The charges stemmed from an incident during a flight where Mr Singh allegedly assaulted Mr Valiyapeediyekal, a student pilot. The District Court found Mr Singh guilty on all charges, and Mr Singh appealed the convictions. The High Court of New Zealand heard the appeal, which centred on the feasibility of the alleged assault occurring under the circumstances described and the credibility of the witnesses. The court was required to determine whether the District Court's findings were correct and whether the Judge had appropriately assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the feasibility of the assault.

The court found that the expert witnesses' evidence was not truly impartial and was based on hypothetical scenarios, which did not assist in determining the feasibility of the assault. The court also noted that the evidence regarding the feasibility of the assault was internally inconsistent and contradicted by other witnesses. The court held that the Judge was entitled to prefer Mr Valiyapeediyekal's account, particularly given the implausible calculations of descent rate that Mr Singh's evidence entailed. The Judge's assessment of Mr Valiyapeediyekal's evidence and demeanour was available to her, and she was entitled to prefer his account. The court found no basis to disagree with the Judge's assessment of the merits or her finding that the charge of assault was proved.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court found that the District Court's findings were correct, and the appeal had no merit.

Orders