Singh v The King - [2024] NZSC 171

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 98/2024
[2024] NZSC 171

BETWEEN	DALJEET SINGH Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	R M Mansfield KC and J N Olsen B So for Respondent
Judgment:	11 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was tried before a jury in the District Court at Tauranga on 10 charges of sexual violation by rape and unlawful sexual connection, male assaults female, injuring with intent to injure, and attempted poisoning. The Judge, in summing up to the jury, departed slightly from the recommended direction on the standard of proof set out in R v Wanhalla.[1]
[1]R v Wanhalla [2007] 2 NZLR 573 (CA).
The applicant was found guilty on six of these charges, including two representative charges of sexual violation,[2] and sentenced to seven years and 10 months’ imprisonment.[3] The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against these convictions.[4]
[2]The applicant was found not guilty on four of the charges, including the attempted poisoning—not three as the Court of Appeal thought: Singh v R [2024] NZCA 364 (Thomas, Fitzgerald and Osborne JJ) [CA judgment] at [2].
[3]R v Singh [2023] NZDC 7529 (Judge Mabey).
[4]CA judgment, above n 2.
He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court, citing the trial Judge’s direction.

The Courts below

We set out the relevant parts of the Wanhalla model direction and the direction given in the applicant’s case below:

R v Wanhalla[5]

The Crown must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, you are sure that the accused is guilty.

It is not enough for the Crown to persuade you that the accused is probably guilty or even that he or she is very likely guilty.

On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty when dealing with the reconstruction of past events and the Crown does not have to do so.

What then is a reasonable doubt? A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the accused after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.

In summary, if, after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence, you are sure that the accused is guilty you must find him or her guilty. On the other hand, if you are not sure that the accused is guilty, you must find him or her not guilty.

R v Singh[6]

The Crown must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard which will only be met…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Singh v The King [2024] NZSC 171
Case: [2024] NZSC 171
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Daljeet Singh versus The King, the applicant, Daljeet Singh, appealed against his convictions and sentence following his trial in the District Court at Tauranga, where he was found guilty on six charges including two of sexual violation. The Supreme Court dismissed Singh's application for leave to appeal, focusing on the trial Judge's direction to the jury on the standard of proof. The central legal issue was whether the trial Judge's deviation from the recommended direction in R v Wanhalla constituted a significant error warranting a higher court review.

The Supreme Court examined the trial Judge's direction and compared it to the model direction in Wanhalla, noting the omission of certain phrases concerning the Crown's need to persuade the jury that the accused was not merely probably or very likely guilty, but sure of guilt. The Court of Appeal had previously held that the Judge's directions sufficiently conveyed the high standard of proof required. The Supreme Court further clarified that while adherence to the exact form of the Wanhalla direction is preferred, it is not mandatory, provided the essential elements are adequately communicated. The Court concluded that the departure in this case was modest and did not materially prejudice the trial's fairness or risk a miscarriage of justice.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court held that the question of law raised by the appeal was settled and did not present a matter of general or public importance. Additionally, the Court was not persuaded that there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice if leave to appeal was not granted. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders