Singh v Police - [2023] NZHC 1858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-35

[2023] NZHC 1858

BETWEEN
REGINAL RAJ SINGH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 July 2023

Appearances:

R Chaudhry for Appellant H Watts for Respondent

Judgment:

18 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 18 July 2023 at 11:00 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Manukau Chaudhry Legal, Manukau City

SINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1858 [18 July 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 29 June 2022, after a Judge-alone trial,1 Reginal Raj Singh was convicted by Judge Field of criminal harassment2 under s 8(1)(b) of the Harassment Act 1997 (the Act). On 25 January 2023, he was sentenced by Judge Moses to 80 hours community work and nine months’ supervision. He now appeals against conviction and sentence.

Factual background

[2] Mr Singh was previously married to the complainant. Their separation was acrimonious. At about 11.40 am on 28 July 2020, the complainant was driving along Cavendish Drive in Manukau when she noticed a black Ford Ranger following her. The complainant then attended a nail appointment. After she left the appointment, the complainant noticed the same black Ford Ranger following her on Diorella Drive, Manukau.

[3] She stopped her car and got out to ascertain the Ford Ranger’s number plate and to take a photograph of it. The complainant said to the female passenger, “can you stop following me” to which the passenger replied, “I’m not following you bitch”. The complainant then identified Mr Singh as the driver. Mr Singh then put down his window and yelled in Hindi “[y]ou and your friend Thakur wait and watch see what I do”. Mr Singh then drove off.

[4] In explanation, Mr Singh said he was in the area with friends viewing an open home but denied making any threats to the complainant.

Offence of criminal harassment

[5] The offence of criminal harassment under s 8 of the Act, as charged in this case, is as follows:

(1)Every person commits an offence who harasses another person in any case where—

1 Police v Singh [2022] NZDC 12250.
2 Harassment Act 1997, ss 8(1)(b) and (2). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.

…

(b)the first-mentioned person knows that the harassment is likely to cause the other person, given his or her particular circumstances, to reasonably fear for—

(i)that other person’s safety; or

(ii)the safety of any person with whom that other person is in a family relationship.

(2)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

[6]“Harassment” is defined in s 3 of the Act as follows:

3Meaning of harassment

(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person harasses another person if he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person, being a pattern of behaviour that includes doing any specified…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 1858
Decision Date: 18 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Singh appealed against his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment under the Harassment Act 1997. The appeal was heard by Woolford J, who reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The key issue was whether the trial Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the nature and pattern of the alleged harassment by Singh towards the complainant, focusing on whether there were sufficient proven acts to establish the required threshold for a charge under s 8(1)(b) of the Act. The Judge needed to consider specific acts and the requisite mens rea for each act, but failed to make specific findings about the prior acts alleged in the charging document and the summary of facts. Instead, the Judge made general statements about the pattern of behaviour and intent to cause distress. The appeal court concluded that the Judge's failure to make specific findings about the prior specified acts and the requisite mens rea resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Woolford J allowed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The conviction for criminal harassment and the sentence of 80 hours community work and nine months’ supervision were quashed. No re-trial was ordered due to the length of time since the alleged offences.

Orders