Singh v Police - [2025] NZHC 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-589

[2025] NZHC 598

BETWEEN
AMAR PREET SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 March 2024

Appearances:

J Hudson and D Bousfield for Appellant J Bragg for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 March 2021 at 3pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau J Hudson, Barrister, Auckland

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 598 [21 March 2025]

What this appeal is about

[1] On 21 February 2024, Mr Amar Singh was found guilty1 on one charge of assaulting his wife with intent to injure2 following a Judge-alone trial before Judge N Tahana.

[2] At the subsequent sentencing hearing,3 he was convicted and discharged, rather than discharged without conviction which was the sentence advanced by his lawyer.

[3] He appeals against his conviction. While an appeal against sentence was also filed, in the course of this hearing, it became clear that the sentence appeal was not pursued with any vigour.

[4] Mr Singh’s appeal was filed out of time. His counsel explains this was because they were waiting to receive a copy of the Judge’s oral judgment. The Crown does not oppose the grant of an extension of time, and I grant it accordingly.

[5]As to his conviction, Mr Singh contends:

(a)the Judge failed to engage with Mr Singh’s evidence and made no explicit finding rejecting his evidence, let alone providing any reasons for doing so;

(b)the Judge erred in failing to correctly consider Mr Singh’s claim of self- defence and incorrectly put a “gloss” on the law, particularly in terms of her comments that at the time he alleged that his wife was attacking him, Mr Singh had “no major concerns” and could have “retreated”.

[6]Mr Singh therefore submits his conviction should be quashed.

[7] The police argue that there is no error in the District Court decision and the conviction must stand.

1      NZ Police v Singh [2024] NZDC 4364.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 193. Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
3      NZ Police v Singh [2024] NZDC 20222.

The case against Mr Singh

[8] The charge arose out of an argument between Mr Singh and his wife of seven years (whom in this judgment I will call Mr Singh’s wife or Ms X). The argument escalated into a physical altercation leaving Ms X with bruises and Mr Singh with scratches.

[9] The allegations were that after Ms X put her hands on Mr Singh’s shoulders, he pushed her to the ground. There, he hit her on the head continuously. On a scale of force from one to 10 (10 being the hardest), she said the hits were at force 10.

[10] Mr Singh’s position was that he was acting reasonably in his own defence. He pushed his wife away and to the ground in order to defend himself as he…

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 [2025] NZHC 598
Case: [2025] NZHC 598
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Amar Preet Singh appealed against his conviction for assaulting his wife with intent to injure, following a trial and sentencing hearing in the District Court. Singh's primary contention was that the Judge failed to adequately address his evidence and provide reasons for rejecting it, as well as erroneously assessing his claim of self-defence. The police maintained that the District Court's decision was correct, and the conviction should stand.

The court examined whether the Judge provided adequate reasons and sufficiently addressed Singh's credibility. The court found that while the Judge did not explicitly reject Singh's evidence or provide reasons for doing so, her acceptance of the wife's evidence necessarily implied a rejection of Singh's. The court acknowledged that the Judge should have been explicit in her reasoning but concluded that her failure to do so did not warrant interference.

Regarding the self-defence claim, the court found that the Judge's comments about Singh's lack of fear or major concerns were not an imposition of a more stringent test but rather an indication that Singh was not acting in self-defence. The court also noted that the Judge correctly concluded that the police had disproved beyond reasonable doubt that Singh's use of force was reasonable.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no miscarriage of justice in the District Court's decision. The conviction appeal was dismissed because the court concluded that the Judge's failure to provide explicit reasons for rejecting Singh's evidence did not render the judgment flawed. The sentence appeal was dismissed as it was not pursued with vigour, and any mischaracterisation of the offence by the Judge did not warrant further consideration.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss both the conviction and sentence appeals, maintaining the District Court's decision as correct.

Orders