Singh v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 3388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000389

[2021] NZHC 3388

BETWEEN
SHARANJEET SINGH

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 6 December 2021; further submissions filed on 7 July 2021

Appearances:

R Chaudhry for Appellant

M R L Davie for Respondent

Judgment:

10 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 10 December 2021 at 11.30 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Chaudhry Legal, Manukau Crown Law, Wellington

SINGH v R [2021] NZHC 3388 [10 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] On 31 March 2021, the appellant, Sharanjeet Singh, pleaded guilty to assaulting and threatening to kill his wife. The pleas were entered before Judge Earwaker in the District Court at Manukau after he had given a sentence indication to Mr Singh.1 At the time, Mr Singh was represented by Christopher White, an experienced criminal lawyer.

[2] Mr Singh was subsequently sentenced by Judge Earwaker to 120 hours’ community work, together with supervision for a period of eight months.2 At this point he was represented by Kyle Macneil, a solicitor practising in Manukau.

[3] Mr Singh now appeals his convictions. Essentially, he argues that he should not be held to his guilty pleas because he did not have an interpreter at the time. He also claims that he was pressured into pleading guilty by Mr White.

Relevant background

[4] Mr Singh is a 30 year old Fijian national. He has been in New Zealand since 2017 on a work visa. He initially worked as a truck driver.

[5] In 2020, Mr Singh was living with the complainant, their two children and the complainant’s mother at an address in Otahuhu, Auckland.

[6] On the evening of Wednesday 15 July 2020, Mr Singh and the complainant were at home together with their children and the complainant’s mother. Mr Singh and the complainant had a heated argument. Mr Singh accused her of infidelity. The argument went on for several hours and resulted in the complainant sleeping in her son’s room.

[7] At around 9.30am the next morning (on 16 July 2020), Mr Singh stormed into the bedroom to continue the argument. The complainant’s mother and the complainant’s son, then aged 11, were both in bed with the complainant. Mr Singh

1 R v Singh DC Manukau CRI-2020-092-007048, 31 March 2021.
2 Police v Singh [2021] NZDC 15082.

yelled at the complainant and demanded documents he thought she was hiding from him. Mr Singh then jumped on top of the complainant. He put both of his hands around her neck and began to apply pressure. He used his full body weight to stop her from getting away. As a result of the pressure on her neck, the complainant started to feel weak. She thought she was going to lose consciousness. The complainant’s mother and the son were yelling at Mr Singh to stop. Eventually, they managed to pull him off the complainant.

[8] Mr Singh then left the bedroom but…

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 [2021] NZHC 3388
Case: [2021] NZHC 3388
Decision Date: 10 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharanjeet Singh appeals his convictions for assaulting and threatening to kill his wife. The District Court at Manukau sentenced him to 120 hours of community work and eight months of supervision. Singh argues that he should not be held to his guilty pleas because he did not have an interpreter at the time and was pressured into pleading guilty by his lawyer, Mr White. The court was required to determine if a miscarriage of justice occurred, which would necessitate overturning the convictions. The court considered whether Singh properly understood the charges, the proposed resolution, and the pleas he entered. Despite Singh's claims that his primary language is Hindi and that he did not understand English, the court found ample evidence that Singh communicated in English with various parties, including police, lawyers, and the court. Singh's ability to understand and communicate in English was evident from his interactions, documents, and the absence of any requests for an interpreter. The court concluded that Singh fully appreciated the nature and quality of his decision to plead guilty, making the decision voluntarily. There was no evidence of misunderstanding, mistake, or improper pressure from his lawyers. The appeal was dismissed as there was no miscarriage of justice.

Orders