Singh v The King - [2025] NZHC 2535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-339

[2025] NZHC 2535

BETWEEN
JASWINDER BOBBY SINGH

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 2 September 2025

Appearances:

E Gatoloai and A C L Jordan for Appellant P J Puertollano for Respondent

Judgment:

2 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 September 2025 at 3.45 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:Public Defence Service, Manukau, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau, Auckland

SINGH v R [2025] NZHC 2535 [2 September 2025]

[1] Jaswinder Singh pleaded guilty to driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent). In fact it was the ninth time he had been before the Court for such offending. Judge Andrée Wiltens imposed an end sentence of six months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Singh appeals. He says he should have been sentenced to home detention.

[2] In his sentencing notes Judge Andrée Wiltens recorded that at 1.00 am on 12 November 2024 Mr Singh drove his car to a bar. Police came to the bar, apparently alerted by a member of the public concerned about Mr Singh’s driving. When spoken to by police Mr Singh said he had been drinking all day. His breath alcohol reading was 848/400, more than twice the permitted lawful limit.

[3]The Judge then noted Mr Singh’s previous driving offending:

(a)1995, dangerous driving;

(b)1998, failing to provide the police with his address;

(c)in 2000, driving with excess breath alcohol;

(d)2004, failing to stop to ascertain injury and also dangerous driving again;

(e)2006, driving with excess breath alcohol with a level of more than twice the limit;

(f)2008, another excess breath alcohol, this time in the aggravated form with a reading of 637/400 and also later that year driving while disqualified;

(g)2009, driving with excess breath alcohol and driving while disqualified;

1 New Zealand Police v Singh [2025] NZDC 14312.

(h)2008, another set of driving while disqualified and driving with excess breath alcohol;

(i)2010, driving with excess breath alcohol again more than twice the legal limit and driving while disqualified;

(j)2012, providing false information to the police to conceal the fact that he was driving while he should not have been, and driving while disqualified, driving with excess breath alcohol again more than twice the legal limit;

(k)2013, driving while disqualified, and careless use;

(l)in 2014, driving while disqualified and driving with excess blood alcohol over twice the permitted limit. Subsequently in 2014 again, driving while disqualified.

[4] The Judge noted the maximum penalty for the offence was two years’ imprisonment. The Judge took a starting point of 12 months, then, after providing a 50 per cent reduction from that starting point to recognise the efforts Mr Singh had made over the past 10 years and his guilty pleas, the Judge was left with the sentence of six months’ imprisonment. While recognising that there had been no further offending over the last 10 years the Judge nevertheless concluded that Mr…

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 [2025] NZHC 2535
Case: [2025] NZHC 2535
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jaswinder Bobby Singh appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge Andrée Wiltens for driving with excess breath alcohol, his ninth such offence. Judge Andrée Wiltens sentenced Mr Singh to six months' imprisonment. The appeal focuses on the appropriateness of the custodial sentence, arguing for a sentence of home detention instead. The appellant's counsel submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the Judge erred by not considering alternative sentencing options, particularly home detention, which would adequately meet the principles of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the desirability of keeping offenders in the community. Counsel relied on the cases of Ruru v Police and Hood v Police, where the High Court had allowed appeals against imprisonment and imposed home detention on recidivist drink drivers. However, the Court found these cases distinguishable, noting Mr Singh's history of non-compliance with community-based sentences and the seriousness of his current offence. The Court held that the Judge was entitled to conclude that imprisonment was the least restrictive outcome in Mr Singh's case, given his history and the need to protect the public.

The appeal was dismissed, and Mr Singh is to surrender to Central Police Station by 4.00 pm on 3 September 2025.

Orders