Singh v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 374

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA46/2019
[2019] NZCA 374

BETWEEN	SABPREET SINGH Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	29 July 2019
Court:	Miller, Peters and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person B H Dickey and EAM Mok for Respondent
Judgment:	20 August 2019 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Singh appeals the sentence of six years and six months imprisonment on five charges of aggravated robbery, one of assault with intent to rob, and two of theft by a person in a special relationship.

The facts

Mr Singh was night manager at a Countdown supermarket. He twice stole foodstuffs to a total value of near $2,300, and was dismissed on 6 March 2018.
Between 18 March and 23 July 2018 he committed five aggravated robberies. The victims were banks (x2), fast food outlets and supermarkets (x2). On each occasion he entered the premises in disguise and armed variously with a screwdriver, a tyre iron, a tyre pump, a poker and a crowbar. He approached staff and demanded money while brandishing his weapon. On one occasion he fled empty-handed when it seemed likely he would meet resistance. The total he stole in this way was $18,384.

The sentencing

Mr Singh denied the offending and pleaded not guilty. But in November 2018 he accepted a sentence indication.[1] Judge Collins indicated a starting point of 10 years imprisonment for the robbery offences with a discount of 20 per cent for guilty pleas.[2] The Judge sentenced Mr Singh accordingly on 14 December 2018.[3] He adopted a starting point of 10 years imprisonment for the robbery offences,[4] with no uplift for the thefts in a special relationship.[5] That starting point took totality into account. He gave Mr Singh a discount of 18 months (15 per cent) for personal factors, being remorse, lack of previous convictions and the hardship of serving his sentence far from his family in India.[6] He allowed 20 per cent for the guilty pleas.

The appeal

[1]R v Singh DC Auckland CRI-2018-044-2754, 9 November 2018 [Sentencing indication].

[2]At [4] and [5].

[3]R v Singh [2018] NZDC 26143 [Sentencing notes].

[4]At [5].

[5]At [8].

[6]At [7].

Mr Singh represented himself on appeal. He first claimed that he had understood the sentence indication was only four years imprisonment. He explained that things went wrong for him when he was unable to work. He blames this on a fire at a restaurant where he went to work after being dismissed by Countdown. He was paying medical bills in India for his father and offended because he did not have the means to pay. He borrowed money from banks and friends but was unable to repay them. When he offended he took weapons but had no intention of using them, noting he fled on the one occasion when 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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Singh v The Queen [2019] NZCA 374
Case: [2019] NZCA 374
Decision Date: 20 August 2019 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sabhapreet Singh, sought to appeal against his sentence of six years and six months imprisonment for five counts of aggravated robbery, one count of assault with intent to rob, and two counts of theft by a person in a special relationship. The appeal was heard by Miller, Peters, and Woolford JJ, and the decision was handed down on 20 August 2019. The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive, given his claims of misunderstanding the sentence indication provided by the Judge. The Court had to determine whether the appellant's claims of misunderstanding the sentence indication were credible and whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offending. The Court found that the appellant's claims of misunderstanding the sentence indication were not credible as he was represented at the time and had been given the correct indication in writing. The Court also found that the starting point of ten years for the offences was appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the totality principle. The Court further found that the discount for personal mitigating factors, including remorse, good character, and hardship, was appropriate, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal. The final orders of the Court were that the application for an extension of time to appeal was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders