Singh v The King - [2023] NZSC 141

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 68/2023
[2023] NZSC 141

BETWEEN	DONALD DEV KUMAR SINGH Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	J E L Carruthers for Applicant I S Auld and L C Hay for Respondent
Judgment:	27 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Following a jury trial, Mr Singh was found guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] He appealed against conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the trial Judge gave the jury an incomplete intoxication direction and the prosecution breached s 32 of the Evidence Act 2006, dealing with the right to silence. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.[2] Mr Singh now seeks leave to appeal to this Court arguing the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to these two issues.

Background

[1]He was sentenced to 5 years and 5 months’ imprisonment: R v Singh [2022] NZDC 16765 (Judge Wharepouri).

[2]Singh v R [2023] NZCA 220 (Katz, Whata and Davison JJ) [CA judgment].

The relevant facts are summarised by the Court of Appeal.[3] We need only note the following. Mr Singh and Mr Tanginoa were drinking at Mr Tanginoa’s relative’s house together throughout the day on 30 October 2018. The Crown case at trial was that during the evening Mr Singh became angry after losing his phone and Mr Tanginoa decided to drive him home. During the drive, Mr Singh used a knife or box cutter to slash and stab Mr Tanginoa. Mr Tanginoa fought back but Mr Singh continued to cut and stab. Mr Tanginoa eventually got out of the car where the fighting continued. Mr Singh was injured and left the scene.
[3]At [4]–[6].
When later found at the roadside, Mr Singh said he had been beaten by someone else. In hospital and after being arrested, Mr Singh maintained he had been assaulted but did not identify Mr Tanginoa as the assailant.
At trial, Mr Singh’s evidence was that Mr Tanginoa was the one who was angry rather than Mr Singh. Upon leaving the party, he said Mr Tanginoa attacked him. Mr Singh managed to escape out of the car. He denied stabbing Mr Tanginoa.

Intoxication direction

The issue as to the direction on intoxication arose in this way. There were references in the evidence, and in the addresses of counsel, to the fact that both men were drinking on the day. The Judge referred to this evidence in summing up saying this:[4]
You heard evidence that before the crucial events in the car, that Mr Tanginoa and Mr Singh had been drinking for much of the day. Alcohol sometimes has a disinhibiting effect so people may do things, when intoxicated, that they would not do when they are sober. But the law holds people responsible for their intentional acts, even if they are drunk at the time. A drunken…

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 [2023] NZSC 141
Case: [2023] NZSC 141
Decision Date: 27 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal by Donald Dev Kumar Singh against his conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Singh had previously appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge provided an incomplete intoxication direction to the jury and that the prosecution breached section 32 of the Evidence Act 2006 by not addressing his right to silence. The Court of Appeal dismissed Singh's appeal. Singh now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to these issues.

The Court of Appeal had considered Singh's arguments and concluded that the trial judge's partial direction on intoxication was not necessary because there was no evidence that Singh was so intoxicated that he could not have intended to stab Tanginoa. The Court also found that, even if the intoxication direction was incorrect, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice due to the strong evidence of intent presented by the Crown. Regarding the section 32 issue, the Court of Appeal found that there was a breach but determined it did not cause a miscarriage of justice, considering the strength of the Crown's case and other directions given by the trial judge.

The Supreme Court found no error in the Court of Appeal's assessment. It agreed that the partial intoxication direction was appropriate and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The Court also agreed that the breach of section 32 did not result in a miscarriage of justice, given the strong Crown case and other directions provided to the jury. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders