Singh v Police - [2013] NZHC 2489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000253 [2013] NZHC 2489

BETWEEN
JAGTAR SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 23 September 2013

Appearances:

H Cheeseman for Appellant
I Auld for Respondent

Judgment:

23 September 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Public Defence Service (H Cheeseman), Manukau
Meredith Connell (I Auld), Auckland

SINGH v POLICE [2013] NZHC 2489 [23 September 2013]

Introduction

[1] On 16 August 2013, Jagtar Singh (the appellant) was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with six months post-release conditions on one charge of male assaults female (his mother), one charge of intentionally damaging his parents’ front door, one charge of threatening to injure his father with intent to frighten him, two charges of assaulting his father, and one charge of intentionally damaging a Police car. He now appeals against the sentence.

Background

[2] On 15 November 2011, the appellant was at his parents’ home. His mother went to use the toilet and locked the door behind her. He yelled at his mother and when she opened the door he slapped her arm. This frightened her and as a result she ran out of the house to the neighbour’s property. The appellant picked up a black shoe and continued yelling and screaming and chased her down the road. The appellant caught up with her and used his shoe as a weapon to his mother on the left shoulder. He continued yelling and threw the shoe at his mother.

[3] On 21 February 2012, the appellant went to his parents’ home in Papakura. He was intoxicated after drinking at a bar. He yelled at his parents to open the door and when they would not, he smashed the glass pane of the front door and then fled before the Police arrived. This offending occurred while the appellant was on bail for assaulting his mother.

[4] On 6 April 2012, the appellant confronted his father with a large metal spoon and told him he was going to kill him. His father attempted to walk away from him and go to the garage. The appellant hit his father on the shoulder with his right fist. He then hit his father again on the left side of his face. The appellant’s father went to a neighbouring property and called the Police. The appellant fled.

[5] On 8 April 2012 at around 11.00 pm, the appellant went to an associate’s address in Papatoetoe. The appellant let himself into the house while his associate was out. The associated discovered the appellant asleep on his couch and asked him to leave. The appellant refused to leave so his associate called the Police. The

appellant was arrested and damaged the back of the front passenger seat of the Police car when he kicked it when sitting in the back of the car.

[6] On 25 February 2013, the appellant again went to his parents’ home in Papakura to pick up his clothes. His father told him he could not do that. He became…

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 [2013] NZHC 2489
Case: [2013] NZHC 2489
Decision Date: 23 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Singh v Police involved an appeal by Jagtar Singh against his sentence. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with six months post-release conditions for various charges, including assault and wilful damage. The legal issues in this case focused on whether the starting point for the appellant's sentence was too high, and if home detention should have been considered as an alternative to imprisonment. The Court examined the severity of the appellant's offences, comparing them to other cases where lower starting points were adopted. It was determined that a starting point of six months for the lead offence was more appropriate. Furthermore, the Court found that the Judge had mischaracterised home detention as a community-based sentence, which led to its exclusion from consideration. Given the appellant's mental health issues and the potential benefits of home detention, the Court concluded that this alternative sentence would be more effective in ensuring the appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The Court found that the starting point for the appellant's sentence was too high and that home detention should have been considered. The Judge's starting point of 12 months imprisonment for the lead offence was deemed excessive when compared to other cases where lesser starting points were upheld. The Court emphasised that the appellant's assault on his mother, while serious, did not result in lasting injury, and thus a lower starting point was warranted. Additionally, the Court found that the Judge had incorrectly categorised home detention as a community-based sentence, leading to its exclusion from consideration. The Court held that home detention provides a real alternative to imprisonment, carrying significant levels of denunciation and deterrence. Given the appellant's mental health difficulties and the potential benefits of home detention, the Court concluded that this alternative sentence would be more effective in ensuring the appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 12 months imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of five months of home detention. The Court imposed additional conditions, including mandatory reporting to the Probation Service upon release from prison, attending an assessment with a Department of Corrections psychologist, and completing any recommended counselling or treatment. The Court also directed that a copy of the psychological report be released to the appellant's supervising probation officer.

Orders