Singh v The the Queen - [2022] NZCA 271

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA34/2022
[2022] NZCA 271

BETWEEN	SHARANJEET SINGH Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Gilbert, Mander and Fitzgerald JJ
Counsel:	R P Chaudhry for Appellant M R L Davie for Crown
Judgment: (On the papers)	28 June 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mander J)

After being provided with a sentence indication, Mr Sharanjeet Singh pleaded guilty in the Manukau District Court to charges of assaulting and threatening to kill his wife.[1] An application to be discharged without conviction was declined and he was sentenced to 120 hours’ community work and eight months’ supervision.[2]
[1]R v Singh DC Manukau CRI-2020-092-7048, 31 March 2021.
[2]Police v Singh [2021] NZDC 15082.
Mr Singh appealed his convictions on the basis his guilty pleas were the product of language difficulties resulting from him not having access to an interpreter, and that he was induced into pleading guilty by the illegitimate actions and influence of his lawyers. His appeal was dismissed.[3] Wylie J held Mr Singh understood English and no misunderstandings had arisen from any language difficulties.[4] Wylie J also determined Mr Singh made a free and voluntary decision to enter guilty pleas which was not vitiated by any counsel error or misconduct.[5]
[3]Singh v R [2021] NZHC 3388.
[4]At [27]–[28].
[5]At [36] and [41].
Mr Singh now applies to this Court for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction. He essentially advances the same grounds — that counsel failed to follow his instructions and neglected to provide him with language assistance to allow him to properly instruct counsel and understand the proceeding. He claims he therefore did not make an informed decision to plead guilty.
The Crown opposes the application for leave to appeal. It submits Mr Singh seeks to re-litigate two factual findings made by the High Court regarding his ability to understand and communicate with his lawyers in English and that he intentionally and voluntarily instructed his lawyers to enter guilty pleas.

Background

The charges arise out of a domestic dispute that occurred in the family home after Mr Singh accused his partner of infidelity. In the presence of their teenage son and the complainant’s mother, Mr Singh applied pressure to the complainant’s neck to the point she thought she was going to lose consciousness. After being pulled off the complainant, Mr Singh again confronted her, this time with a hammer and threatened to kill her before being disarmed.
The complainant suffered bruising and scratches to her neck which were documented in photographs taken by attending police officers. When spoken to by police, Mr Singh denied the offending, despite statements made by the complainant’s mother and son corroborating her account of what had occurred.

Procedural history

Mr Singh was legally represented throughout the criminal proceeding. He pleaded guilty following advice the prosecution…

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 the Queen

Details

AGLC: Singh v The the Queen [2022] NZCA 271
Case: [2022] NZCA 271
Decision Date: 28 June 2022 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application for leave to bring a second appeal against a conviction. Sharanjeet Singh was convicted in the Manukau District Court of assaulting and threatening to kill his wife. Singh was sentenced to 120 hours of community work and eight months' supervision. Singh appealed his conviction on the grounds that his guilty pleas were the result of language difficulties and counsel error. The High Court dismissed the appeal. Singh now applies to the Court of Appeal for leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction on similar grounds.

The court was required to decide whether leave to bring a second appeal against conviction should be granted. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that Singh sought to re-litigate factual findings made by the High Court. The court considered whether the proposed appeal involved a matter of general public importance or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred if the appeal was not heard.

The court found that there was ample evidence for the High Court to conclude that Singh was able to understand and communicate with his lawyers and provide them with informed instructions. Singh's reliance on an initial request for a Fiji Hindi interpreter did not alter this conclusion. The court also found that Singh's decision to plead guilty was made on a free and voluntary basis, and there was nothing to suggest he did not fully understand the decisions he was being called upon to make or the implications of taking those steps. The court held that there was no reasonably available argument that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The application for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction was declined.

Orders