Singh v R - [2019] NZCA 436

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA101/2019
[2019] NZCA 436

BETWEEN	ROHIT DEEPAK SINGH Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	31 July 2019
Court:	Miller, Peters and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	M W Ryan for Appellant E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	17 September 2019 at 1.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Peters J)

Mr Singh was convicted of the murder of Ms Arishma Chand following a jury trial before Powell J in October and November 2018. On 14 February 2019, the Judge sentenced Mr Singh to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 19 years.[1] The sole issue on appeal is whether an MPI of 19 years was manifestly excessive. Mr Ryan, for Mr Singh, submits that it was and that no more than 17 years was required.[2]

Facts

[1]R v Singh [2019] NZHC 148.

[2]Mr Singh abandoned his appeal against conviction.

Ms Chand and Mr Singh had previously been in a relationship which she ended in August 2016. Thereafter, Mr Singh developed what the Judge described as “an ongoing obsession” with Ms Chand that evidenced itself in various ways, such as stalking her and sending her numerous messages.[3]
[3]R v Singh, above n 1, at [9].
The Judge was satisfied that Mr Singh had decided to kill Ms Chand by 10 November 2017. Instead of going to work that day, Mr Singh drove to Ms Chand’s address in a borrowed car and with a large knife. The Judge was satisfied that, but for the presence of Ms Chand’s family, Mr Singh would have killed Ms Chand that day. Mr Singh returned in another borrowed car on 11 November 2017 and waited outside for much of the day. He returned later that evening in his own vehicle, with gloves, a large knife and a second, unidentified, weapon.
Ms Chand eventually returned home with her boyfriend. He left at 12.45 am on 12 November 2017. Ms Chand telephoned her parents at about 12.50 am who said they would be home in 10 to 15 minutes.
Mr Singh entered the house shortly after that telephone call and attacked Ms Chand in her bedroom, inflicting 20 wounds in what the Judge described as a “frenzied attack”.[4] One particular wound caused Ms Chand to bleed to death. It was apparent from other wounds that Ms Chand had attempted to resist the assault, and she also scratched Mr Singh’s face. While Ms Chand was on her hands and knees, Mr Singh struck her at least eight times with the second weapon, fracturing her skull.
[4]At [19].
Mr Singh took steps to conceal his involvement after leaving the scene by disposing of the gloves, his clothes, the weapons, and the backpack in which he had carried them. Mr Singh rang the police shortly after 2 am, alleging that he had been assaulted by three girls who had scratched…

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 [2019] NZCA 436
Case: [2019] NZCA 436
Decision Date: 17 September 2019 at 1.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by Rohit Deepak Singh against the sentence imposed by the High Court following his conviction for the murder of Ms Arishma Chand. Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 19 years. The Court of Appeal was asked to determine if the MPI was manifestly excessive. Singh's counsel argued that the MPI should be no more than 17 years. The Crown counsel submitted that the 19-year MPI was not manifestly excessive.

The legal issues in this case focused on whether the minimum period of imprisonment of 19 years was excessive. The Court considered if the post-offending conduct of Singh could be treated as an aggravating factor, and if the 19-year MPI was consistent with other cases where similar factors were present.

The Court found that the post-offending conduct of Singh could be considered as an aggravating factor, along with other relevant factors under the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court noted that the 19-year MPI was consistent with other cases where similar factors were present, and thus, it was not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Singh's appeal against the sentence, upholding the 19-year MPI imposed by the High Court.

Final orders: The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders