Singh v Police - [2018] NZCA 170

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA709/2017
[2018] NZCA 170

BETWEEN	MANPREET SINGH Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	18 April 2018
Court:	Cooper, Dobson and Toogood JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	25 May 2018 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to adduce further evidence is declined.
BThe application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dobson J)

The applicant (Mr Singh) pleaded guilty in the District Court to giving false identification details and dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage. He has now sought leave to bring a second appeal from a decision of the High Court that upheld the District Court’s refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction.[1]
[1]Singh v Police [2017] NZHC 2963. There is no record of the District Court decision.
The application for leave is governed by s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which provides:
237 Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court
(1) A convicted person may, with the leave of the second appeal court, appeal to that court against the determination of the person’s first appeal under this subpart.
(2) The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that—
(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(b) a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard.
Mr Singh was disenchanted with each of the different counsel who had appeared for him in the District Court and in the High Court, and has pursued the application for leave on his own behalf. In addressing the grounds for a grant of leave, Mr Singh accepted that his case did not raise a matter of general or public importance. Rather, he focused on what he considered to have been the risk of a miscarriage of justice involved in not obtaining a discharge without conviction.
This Court issued a minute on 9 February 2018 directing that the application for leave was to be set down for an oral hearing. That minute put Mr Singh on notice as to the requirements in r 12B of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001 (the Rules) regarding fresh evidence, and the requirements of rr 12A(1) and (2) if Mr Singh wished to advance the conduct of his lawyer as a ground for making out a miscarriage of justice.

The offending

Mr Singh was stopped by the police on 18 November 2016 for failing to comply with a red traffic signal. He gave the police officer the false name of Bikramjit Singh and provided an Indian driver’s licence for that person. He confirmed to the police at the time that the person pictured on the Indian driver’s licence was him. It appears Mr Singh was concerned to avoid a fine and demerit points that…

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 [2018] NZCA 170
Case: [2018] NZCA 170
Decision Date: 25 May 2018 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Manpreet Singh sought leave to bring a second appeal against the decision of the High Court, which upheld the District Court’s refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction for giving false identification details and dishonestly using a document for pecuniary advantage. Singh had previously pleaded guilty in the District Court to these charges and was dissatisfied with the outcome. The Court of Appeal considered the application for leave to bring a second appeal under s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which requires the court to be satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Singh contended that a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the High Court Judge preferred the evidence of Bikramjit to his own. Singh argued that Bikramjit was lying and that the assessment of his conduct was unjust when he should have been believed as a totally honest person.

The Court of Appeal found that Singh's arguments did not persuade them that there was a prospect of error by the Judge in this aspect of her evaluation. The Judge provided detailed reasons for being satisfied that Bikramjit's version of events was correct, and Singh provided no relevant grounds for criticism of the factual findings made by the Judge. The Court of Appeal also found that Singh's arguments on appeal did not persuade them that there was a prospect of error by the Judge in her evaluation of the consequences of a conviction on these charges. They found that Singh had other employment options if he was unable to work as a real estate agent or a taxi driver. In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal found that the adverse consequences of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

Singh also sought leave to adduce a new affidavit, but the Court of Appeal found that it did not qualify for admission in accordance with r 12B of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001. The application for leave to adduce further evidence and the application for leave to appeal were declined.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for leave to adduce further evidence was declined and the application for leave to appeal was declined. The Court of Appeal did not grant Singh leave to bring a second appeal against the decision of the High Court.

Orders