Solicitor-General v Singh - [2017] NZHC 255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2017-406-000001 [2017] NZHC 255

BETWEEN
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Applicant

AND

SATINDER SINGH Respondent

Hearing: 21 February 2017

Appearances:

M Cooke for Applicant
R A Harrison for Respondent

Judgment:

23 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] This judgment explains why I am dismissing the Solicitor-General’s application for leave to appeal a decision of Judge Ruth delivered in the Blenheim District Court on 6 December 2016. In his decision Judge Ruth discharged Mr Singh without conviction in relation to one charge of assault1 and one charge of wounding
with intent to injure.2

Background

[2] On the evening of 24 March 2016 Mr Singh was at a Blenheim address with a group of friends. He and others at the address were drinking. Mr Singh and the victim consumed a very significant quantity of alcohol.3 At about 12.10 am

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9, maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a fine not
exceeding $4,000.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      There is evidence Mr Singh and the victim had consumed two bottles of whisky and were starting on a third bottle.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v SINGH [2017] NZHC 255 [23 February 2017]

Mr Singh and the victim were both sitting on a couch when they became engaged in a verbal argument. During the argument Mr Singh stood up and approached the victim slapping him one in the face using his right hand. The victim stood up believing he was going to be struck again and went to slap Mr Singh. However, before the victim was able to slap Mr Singh, Mr Singh shoved him in the chest. The victim fell backwards onto the couch. Mr Singh then got on top of the victim and the two began to struggle. During the struggle they rolled off the couch onto the floor with Mr Singh still on top of the victim. While the victim was lying on his back Mr Singh bit the victim once on his nose. The force of the bite caused the victim’s nose to split. The victim suffered a severe laceration and a large portion of flesh was separated from his nose. Other people came into the room and removed Mr Singh from the address. Police were called and located Mr Singh a short time later.

[3] The victim is a 37 year old self-employed man working in a vineyard. He

was “extremely shocked by [the] assault”.4

[4] As a result of the assault the victim had surgery to his nose. He spent two nights in hospital. He also had a tooth displaced and suffered bruising to his face. He was unable to work for two weeks.

[5] Mr Singh was also taken to hospital. He declined to make a statement when spoken to by the Police. At the time of the offending Mr Singh was 21 years old. He had come to New Zealand from India in February 2014 on a work visa which expired…

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 Solicitor-General v Singh

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Singh [2017] NZHC 255
Case: [2017] NZHC 255
Decision Date: 23 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application by the Solicitor-General to appeal a decision of Judge Ruth in the Blenheim District Court, who discharged Satinder Singh without conviction for charges of assault and wounding with intent to injure. Singh was found to have bitten the victim’s nose, causing significant injury. The decision to discharge Singh without conviction was based on several factors, including Singh's completion of restorative justice initiatives, his remorse, and the potential consequences of a conviction on Singh’s immigration status and employment prospects.

The legal issues in this case centered on whether Judge Ruth erred in his assessment of the gravity of the offending, whether he usurped the role of immigration authorities, whether he correctly assessed the weight of potential consequences of a conviction, and if the consequences of a conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The Solicitor-General argued that Judge Ruth misassessed the gravity of the offence, failed to consider the public interest in upholding immigration laws, incorrectly weighted the consequences of a conviction, and found the consequences to be disproportionately severe compared to the offence.

The court found that while Judge Ruth's articulation of his reasoning could have been clearer, particularly in acknowledging the victim's role in the incident, he did not err in his assessment of the gravity of the offence. The court determined that it was reasonable for Judge Ruth to consider the mitigating factors and the steps Singh took to address the offending. The court also found that Judge Ruth did not usurp the role of the immigration authorities but appropriately considered the impact of a conviction on Singh’s immigration status. Furthermore, the court concluded that Judge Ruth's assessment of the consequences of a conviction, including the risk of deportation and its impact on Singh’s employment, was not an error of law. The court ultimately found that Judge Ruth did not err in determining that the consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Solicitor-General’s application for leave to appeal, finding no legal errors in Judge Ruth’s decision to discharge Singh without conviction.

Orders