Singh v The Queen

[2019] NZCA 110

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA682/2018
 [2019] NZCA 110

BETWEEN	RAJESHWAR SINGH Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Williams, Collins and Toogood JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	12 April 2019 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to revisit the appeal in Singh v R [2016] NZCA 582 is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

1. Mr Singh has applied to have this Court reconsider a decision, in which it dismissed his appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 16 years for the murder of his wife.[1]

   [1]Singh v R [2016] NZCA 582 [Court of Appeal decision].

2. The sentence was imposed by Ronald Young J, following a plea of guilty by Mr Singh.[2]  The guilty plea followed a sentence indication, in which the Judge indicated a sentence of life imprisonment with an MPI of 16 years.[3]

   [2]R v Singh [2014] NZHC 1246 [Sentencing notes].

   [3]R v Singh [2014] NZHC 753 [Sentencing indication].

3. Mr and Mrs Singh were living apart at the time of her murder.  Mr Singh had ruminated over the breakup of his marriage.  On 26 November 2013, he broke into Mrs Singh’s home and stabbed her to death.  He then attempted to hang himself in the garage.  The police arrived in time to save Mr Singh.

4. On 20 March 2014, Ronald Young J found Mr Singh was fit to stand trial.[4]  That finding was based on two psychiatric reports prepared pursuant to s 38(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.  In one of those reports it was noted that Mr Singh had a depressive episode but was not psychotic.  The report also recorded Mr Singh’s account that his wife had been stabbed by accident.

   [4]R v S [2014] NZHC 525.

5. In sentencing Mr Singh, Ronald Young J said that s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was engaged because the murder involved premeditation and a home invasion.[5]  The Judge adopted a nominal starting point of an MPI of 18 years, which he reduced to 16 years to reflect Mr Singh’s guilty plea.  The Judge said that although Mr Singh was suffering from depression, his condition did not reduce his culpability or, by itself, warrant a reduction in the sentence.[6]

   [5]Sentencing notes, above n 2, at [17].

   [6]Sentencing indication, above n 3, at [14].

6. When considering Mr Singh’s appeal, this Court endorsed the approach and result reached by Ronald Young J and concluded that the 16-year MPI was not manifestly excessive.[7]

   [7]Court of Appeal decision, above n 1, at [31].

7. In his application to us, Mr Singh reasserts:

   (a)his claim that his wife was killed by accident when she impaled herself on the knife that he was holding; and

   (b)that at the time he was suffering from depression and stress.

8. Mr Singh also maintains his sentence was manifestly excessive compared to the sentence imposed in R v Jefferies, which Mr Singh says involved similar facts to his case.[8]  Mr Jefferies was sentenced to life imprisonment, with an MPI of 11 years for murdering his former partner.[9]

   [8]R v Jefferies [2018] NZHC 2363.

   [9]At [40].

9. This Court has, in exceptional circumstances, the inherent power to reconsider its decisions where the interests of justice require reconsideration, even though the appeal has been finally and formally disposed of.[10]  The Court’s inherent power to reconsider its decisions will only be invoked where a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if a fundamental procedural error is not corrected and there is no alternative effective remedy available, such as an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.[11]

   [10]R v Smith [2003] 3 NZLR 617 (CA) at [36].

   [11]At [36].

10. Mr Singh’s application falls far short of the criteria required before this Court will reconsider its decision.  The reasons for this are:

    (a)The grounds we have referred to at [7] were considered when dismissing Mr Singh’s appeal.

    (b)R v Jefferies is readily distinguishable.  The killing in that case was a “spontaneous event” and it did not involve a home invasion.[12]

    (c)Other avenues are available to Mr Singh if he wishes to pursue them.

    [12]R v Jefferies, above n 8, at [29].

11. There is no basis for this Court to reconsider its earlier decision.  Mr Singh’s application is therefore declined.

Result

1. The application to revisit the appeal in Singh v R [2016] NZCA 582 is declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent