Solicitor-General v Singh - [2014] NZHC 3331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-391 [2014] NZHC 3331

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

v

AMRITPAL SINGH

Hearing: 18 December 2014

Appearances:

M Downs and J C Campbell for Appellant
D Hoskin for Respondent

Judgment:

18 December 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on Crown appeal against sentence]

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL v SINGH [2014] NZHC 3331 [18 December 2014]

[1] Mr Singh pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of aggravated robbery. On 22 October 2014, Judge Recordon sentenced him to 12 months home detention on each charge. In addition, he ordered him to perform 100 hours community work.1 The Crown appeals against that sentence on the basis that the Judge selected a starting point that was well below the appropriate level, and as a result the end sentence was manifestly inadequate.

Background

[2] The charges arose as a result of two separate incidents that occurred four days apart. At around 12.20 pm on 14 April 2014, Mr Singh and two associates were in a motor vehicle in Papatoetoe. Mr Singh was the driver of the vehicle. They drove to a retail store in East Tamaki Road. Mr Singh waited in the vehicle whilst his two associates went inside. One of his associates, Mr Jawan, walked up to the sales person who was standing at the counter. Mr Jawan punched the sales person in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. Mr Jawan’s associate then grabbed a plastic bag and filled it with packets of synthetic cannabis from a display stand beside the counter. The two men then left the store and returned to the vehicle. Mr Singh then drove them away.

[3] On the afternoon of Friday 18 April 2014, the three men were again in the same vehicle. Mr Singh drove his associates to a retail store on Puhunui Road. He parked directly outside the front entrance, and waited in the vehicle whilst Mr Jawan and the third man went into the store. The third man was armed with a rifle. He walked up to the counter, pointed the rifle at the shop keeper and demanded money from her. The shopkeeper took out about $100 in cash from the till and gave it to Mr Jawan. Mr Jawan and the third man then ran out of the shop with the money, and Mr Singh drove them away.

[4] When interviewed by the police, Mr Singh said he had gone to the first store with his associates in order to steal synthetic cannabis. He described his role as being

1 R v Singh DC Manukau CRI-2014-092-4366, 22 October 2014.

that of the getaway driver. He told the police he had gone to the second store in order to rob the store of cash so that he could purchase more synthetic cannabis. He also said he had gone into the second store before the other two men to purchase a drink and reconnoitre the store.

The sentence imposed on Mr Jawan

[5] By the time Judge…

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 [2014] NZHC 3331
Case: [2014] NZHC 3331
Decision Date: 18 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Solicitor-General v Singh involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on Mr Singh by the District Court. Mr Singh had pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery, and was sentenced to 12 months home detention and 100 hours of community work on each charge. The Crown appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The High Court found that the District Court judge had adopted a starting point that was too low and had failed to recognise the seriousness of Mr Singh's offending.

The legal issues in the case centred around the appropriate starting point and sentence for Mr Singh's crimes. The Court of Appeal had previously provided guidance on starting points for aggravated robbery cases, and the Crown argued that the District Court had not followed this guidance. The Court agreed with the Crown, finding that the District Court had adopted a starting point that was too low and had not adequately reflected the seriousness of Mr Singh's offending.

The Court found that each of Mr Singh's incidents warranted a starting point of around five years imprisonment, and that a starting point of six years imprisonment was the lowest that could be adopted in relation to both robberies. The Court also found that mitigating factors such as Mr Singh's age and previous good character warranted a discount of around 15 per cent, or 11 months. However, the Court found that the District Court had not adequately taken into account the full discount available for Mr Singh's early guilty pleas, which should have reduced the sentence by 15 months.

As a result, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal and quashed the sentences imposed by the District Court. In their place, Mr Singh was sentenced to three years six months imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently. The Court emphasised the importance of consistent sentencing in the criminal justice system, and found that the disparity in sentences between Mr Singh and his co-offender was not justified.

Orders