Singh v The King - [2025] NZHC 2314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-264

[2025] NZHC 2314

BETWEEN
NAVJOT SINGH

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 11 August 2025

Appearances:

S Brickell for Appellant

L J Sullivan for Respondent

Judgment:

15 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 15 August 2025 at 11.00 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
S Brickell, Barrister, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

SINGH v R [2025] NZHC 2314 [15 August 2025]

[1] Following a trial that lasted eight days in the District Court, a jury found Mr Navjot Singh (Navjot)1 guilty on a charge of common assault.2 On 12 April 2024,
Judge J Bergseng sentenced him to 80 hours community work.3

[2] He now appeals against conviction. He contends that several irregularities that occurred during the trial have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. He therefore asks this Court in its appellate jurisdiction to set aside the conviction and sentence.

[3] Where a defendant has been found guilty by a jury in the District Court, the Court of Appeal is ordinarily the forum in which any appeal against conviction is heard. However, the fact that Mr Singh was found guilty of a category 2 offence means that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 27 May 2025.4

Background

[4] On 8 October 2022, the complainants, Mr Sandeep Singh (Sandeep) and Mr Manmeet Singh (Manmeet), were living at an address in Papatoetoe. They had previously lived at an address in Clover Park in a flatting situation with Navjot, Mr Jobanjit Singh (Jobanjit), Mr Tejpal Singh (Tejpal) and Mr Tajinder Singh (Tajinder).

[5] During the course of the evening the complainants were visited by Navjot. Navjot was accompanied by two other men. They were joined some time later by another group of persons, including Jobanjit, Tejpal and Tajinder.

[6] There was a dispute at trial as to the reason why Navjot had gone to the complainants’ flat. However, the Crown alleged that an argument occurred outside the address and this led to an altercation in which Navjot, Jobanjit, Tejpal and Tajinder all assaulted Sandeep and Manmeet in different ways.

1 I propose to refer to the appellant as “Navjot” because of the large number of other persons connected with the proceeding who have the surname, Singh. I refer to those persons by their first names as well.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 196.
3      R v Singh [2024] NZDC32404.
4      Singh v R [2025] NZCA 192.

[7] After the men left their address, Sandeep went back inside and called the 111 emergency service. The police attended a short time later and observed injuries to Manmeet. Photographs were taken of these.5 Manmeet went to hospital later that evening and was discharged the next day. He had sustained lacerations to his left cheek, bruising to the eyelid, lacerations to his…

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 2314
Case: [2025] NZHC 2314
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Navjot Singh appeals his conviction for assaulting Manmeet Singh. He argues that the trial was marred by irregularities that may have led to a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, he contends that the evidence about the use of a metal rod during the assault created a significant issue during the trial, as neither complainant had mentioned this detail in their statements to the police. Navjot's counsel submits that this evidence may have influenced the jury's verdict, creating a real risk that some jurors concluded Navjot was guilty because he struck Manmeet with a metal rod, which was never part of the Crown’s case. Navjot also argues that there is an inconsistency between the jury’s verdicts on his charge and those delivered on the remaining defendants, rendering his conviction unsafe.

The court first considers whether the evidence about the use of the metal rod led to an error or irregularity that may have affected the outcome of the trial. It concludes that the wording of the charge and particulars did not suggest the Crown alleged that Navjot assaulted Manmeet using a metal rod. The prosecutor made it clear to the jury that they were not required to reach a verdict on any charge based on the use of the metal rod. Navjot’s trial counsel reinforced this fact in their closing addresses. The court is satisfied that any issues arising from the evidence about the use of the metal rod did not lead to any error or irregularity that may have affected the outcome of the trial.

The court then considers whether the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. It holds that a conviction may be quashed on the basis that it is unreasonable if the verdict on which it is based is inconsistent with another verdict. However, the court is reluctant to usurp the jury’s function by substituting its own view of the facts. The court accepts that there are logical explanations for the differing verdicts, such as different levels of corroboration and the varying reliability of the evidence given by the complainants. The court concludes that the differing verdicts reflect the jury’s assessment of the evidence against each defendant in relation to each charge.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders