Legal Research
Cases
Singh v R

Singh v R

Case [2010] NZSC 161 17 December 2010

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

ORDER UNDER S 140 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S NAME AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 42/2010
[2010] NZSC 161

DUSHKAR KANCHAN SINGH

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 7 October 2010

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: B J Hart, G J King and A J Haskett for Appellant
N P Chisnall and B J Horsley for Crown

Judgment: 17 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

(Given by William Young J)

The appeal

In November 2008, the appellant stood trial in the District Court at Auckland before Judge Perkins and a jury. He was charged with 19 crimes of violence against Ms D, wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice and forgery. At the conclusion of the trial he was found guilty on five of the counts of violence against Ms D and of forgery and wilfully perverting the course of justice. He was subsequently sentenced to two years eight months’ imprisonment.
His appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed only to the extent that his conviction for forgery (and a concurrent sentence imposed in relation to it) were quashed.[1]

Overview

[1]Singh v R [2010] NZCA 144.

On a number of occasions during the criminal process, Ms D attempted to have the prosecution abandoned. On the Crown case, these attempts resulted from pressure and persuasion from the appellant. This alleged pressure and persuasion formed the basis of the count of wilfully attempting to defeat the course of justice. Importantly, however, Ms D gave evidence at the preliminary hearing in a way which supported the Crown case. In doing so, she referred to and adopted entries in her diary in which she had recorded a number of incidents of violence on the part of the appellant towards her.
At trial Ms D was declared hostile under s 94 of the Evidence Act 2006 (after she had repudiated the relevant entries which she had made in her diary). The Judge rejected a claim by her to the privilege against self-incrimination[2] and she was extensively cross-examined by the prosecutor. In the course of this process a number of her earlier statements were produced as exhibits. Most of these supported the Crown case but some were associated with her attempts to have the prosecution abandoned. We will refer to the details of all of these later in these reasons. Late in the trial, when the appellant was being re-examined, his counsel sought to put in five other written statements made by Ms D which arguably supported the defence case. The Judge ruled these documents inadmissible.
[2]The privilege is provided for in s 60 of the Evidence Act 2006 and the procedural requirements for claiming the privilege in court proceedings are set out in s 62.
We will address the case primarily by reference to the three principal contentions advanced…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Singh v R [2010] NZSC 161
Case: [2010] NZSC 161
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v R, the Supreme Court of New Zealand addressed several key issues concerning the admission of evidence and the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination. The appellant, Duskhar Kanchan Singh, was convicted of various charges of violence against his wife, Ms D, and of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge had correctly rejected Ms D's claim to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, whether certain documents should have been admitted as evidence, and whether the trial was unfair. The Court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the judge's decision to reject Ms D's claim of privilege, as the privilege against self-incrimination belongs to the witness, not the party. Furthermore, the Court found that Ms D's claim to invoke the privilege was correctly rejected, as the risk of incrimination was not sufficiently likely to justify its invocation. The Court also determined that the trial judge's decision to exclude certain documents from evidence was appropriate, as their admission would have unfairly prejudiced the Crown and needlessly prolonged the trial. Finally, the Court concluded that the trial was not unfair, as the jury had an adequate basis for assessing Ms D's credibility and the judge's failure to explain the rejected claim to privilege did not impact the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders