Legal Research
Cases
Singh v Police

Singh v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 3581 27 November 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-540

[2024] NZHC 3581

BETWEEN
LOVEDEEP SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 November 2024

Appearances:

J Wall for Appellant

R Vercoe for Respondent

Judgment:

27 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 27 November 2024 at 4:15 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Manukau Counsel: J Wall, Auckland

SINGH v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3581 [27 November 2024]

[1] Yesterday I issued a results judgment dismissing this appeal with reasons to follow.1 These are my reasons.

[2] Mr Singh appeals against a decision of Judge G T Winter dated 2 September 2024 refusing an application for discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.2 The application was in respect of a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol,3 to which Mr Singh pleaded guilty. Mr Singh was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of $500, to pay court costs of $143, and disqualified from driving for six months.

[3] The basis for the application was that the recording of a conviction would affect Mr Singh’s business operating liquor stores, specifically that it would impact on his ability to renew his manager’s certificate under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

The offending

[4] Mr Singh was stopped at a routine checkpoint on the evening of 22 December 2023. He co-operated with police and returned a breath alcohol reading of 488 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. A guilty plea was entered at the first opportunity.

Mr Singh’s business

[5] Mr Singh is the owner or part owner of five liquor stores around New Zealand. Approximately 20 people are employed at the stores. Each of the stores must at all times be managed by a person with a manager’s certificate under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. Accordingly, a number of people working in the business, including Mr Singh, have manager’s certificates.

[6] Mr Singh and two of his employees, Bhupinder Singh and Davinder Singh, are in the process of establishing a new liquor store in Christchurch. Like Mr Singh, they

1      Singh v Police [2024] NZHC 3555.
2      Police v Singh [2024] NZDC 21122.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine of $4,500 and a minimum six months’ disqualification.

have manager’s certificates. Each liquor store must have its own off-licence, so the new business will need to apply for an off-licence under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Legal principles for discharge without conviction

[7] The Court must not grant a discharge without conviction unless it is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.4 This requires consideration of three factors:5

(a)the gravity of the offence;

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 [2024] NZHC 3581
Case: [2024] NZHC 3581
Decision Date: 27 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v Police, the appellant, Mr Singh, sought a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, following his conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol. The appeal centered around the potential impact of the conviction on his ability to renew his manager’s certificate under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The District Court Judge had refused the application, finding that the consequences of the conviction would not be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The High Court was tasked with reviewing this decision, focusing on whether the Judge had correctly assessed the gravity of the offending, the consequences of the conviction, and whether these consequences were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The legal principles guiding the court's decision included the three-step approach outlined by the Court of Appeal in Z (CA447/2012) v R, which required the court to consider the gravity of the offence, the consequences of a conviction, and whether these consequences were disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The High Court found no error in the Judge's assessment of the gravity of the offence, noting that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had previously established the seriousness of drink driving offences. Regarding the consequences of the conviction, the court concluded that the matters raised by Mr Singh were consequences of the offending, not the conviction, as the police could still bring the offending to the attention of the licensing authority. The court also found that even if the consequences were considered as those of a conviction, they were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The High Court upheld the Judge's decision, finding that the consequences of the conviction, while significant, were not disproportionate to the gravity of the offending. The court also rejected Mr Singh's argument that a discharge without conviction would improve the chances of his new business obtaining an off-licence, as the offending would still come to the attention of the licensing authority.

Orders