Singh v Police

[2015] NZHC 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-173 [2015] NZHC 2003

BETWEEN

JAGJOT SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	24 August 2015
Counsel:	S Walker for the Appellant N T Fletcher for the Respondent
Judgment:	24 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Manukau

Public Defence Service, Manukau

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2003 [24 August 2015]

[1]      The   appellant   pleaded   guilty   and   was   sentenced   to   eight   months’ imprisonment on one charge of doing an indecent act on a boy between 12 and 16 years.1    He appeals on the basis that the starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment adopted by the Judge was manifestly excessive and further, that the Judge failed to consider an appropriate community based sentence.

[2]      At the end of the hearing I allowed the appeal and imposed a substituted sentence of 250 hours’ community work.  My reasons now follow.

Background

Summary of Facts

[3]      The appellant, Jagjot Singh, was employed as a security guard by Armour

Guard  Security.    He  provided  security  at  the  Manuerewa Train  Station.    On  2

December 2014, the appellant was working as a security guard at the Station.  At approximately 10:25 pm he approached the complainant, a 13 year old boy, who was sitting at the train station platform.

[4]     A conversation ensued between the appellant and the complainant for approximately ten minutes, during which time the appellant placed his right hand on the complainant’s left thigh.  The appellant then placed his arm on the victim’s back, leant over and kissed the complainant twice on the mouth.

[5]      The appellant was 24 at the time of the offending.

Pre-sentence report

[6]      The appellant is Indian and entered New Zealand on a student visa.  He was then granted a twelve month work permit which expired on 23 May 2015.   The appellant’s mother and brother remain in India and the appellant had provided financial support for them.   The appellant’s father had recently died in a traffic

accident.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3).

[7]      The appellant’s employment at Armour Guard was terminated due to the current  offending,  as  it  was  committed  while  the  appellant  was  at  work.    The appellant is a strong follower of the Sikh religion.  He attends a Temple on a daily basis and undertakes volunteer work at the Temple.  The appellant was not employed at the time the report was written and was not in receipt of any form of benefit.  He received some income from casual farm work and goodwill from members of the Temple.

[8]      The report writer noted that the appellant has no previous convictions in New Zealand or in India. The appellant accepted the police summary of facts, although he stated that the complainant had instigated the interaction.  The appellant had written a letter of apology to the complainant, but was unable to discuss why he committed the offending.  While he expressed remorse, the appellant was very concerned about the possible effect the offending would have on his immigration status.