The King v Sarvjeet Sidhu - [2023] NZHC 3406

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CO-DEFENDANT (GURINDERPAL SINGH BRAR) UNTIL CALLOVER IN THE MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT ON 14 DECEMBER 2023.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-619

[2023] NZHC 3406

THE KING

v

SARVJEET SIDHU

Hearing: 28 November 2023

Appearances:

L Radich, J Tausi and L Taula for the Crown A Speed and K Trotter for the Defendant

Sentencing:

28 November 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Manukau

Counsel:A Speed, Auckland K Trotter, Auckland

R v SIDHU [2023] NZHC 3406 [28 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] Sarvjeet Sidhu, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Harnek Singh on 22 March 2022.1

Background

[2] I will now lay out the background facts of your offending as taken from the agreed summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty.

[3] The victim in this matter is Harnek Singh, who resides in Manurewa. Harnek is a member of the Sikh religion and is well known within the community as a person who commentates on politics and the Sikh religion in both New Zealand and around the world. Harnek runs a popular YouTube channel and radio broadcast where he shares his views. He is a polarising figure in the Sikh community. You did not know the victim personally but were aware of his views.

[4] You attended a local Sikh temple in East Tāmaki with your co-offenders, one of whom, Gurinderpal Brar, was the spiritual leader of the temple. Gurinderpal had significant influence over the members of his temple, including you and your co- offenders. Orders from Gurinderpal were believed to be like orders from God.

[5] In the lead up to the attack, Gurinderpal Brar was angry with Harnek’s commentary on Sikh politics and religion. Gurinderpal sought assistance from members of his inner circle at the temple, known as devotees, to kill Harnek. Gurinderpal procured a bag of weapons, including knives, and stolen number plates to be fitted onto a vehicle used in the attack. On 23 December 2020, Gurinderpal gave you and your co-offender Jaspal Singh final instructions. He gave you weapons and the stolen number plates. He told you to do the job properly and said that you had been chosen by God.

[6] At about 6:50pm that evening, you and your co-offenders Jaspal Singh and Jobanpreet Singh parked outside Harnek Singh’s temple in a black Ford Ranger fitted with the stolen number plates, waiting for Harnek to finish work. He left the temple

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 173 & 66. Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

at approximately 10:09 pm and you followed him in the Ford Ranger. You were soon joined by a white Toyota HiAce van, driven by Hardeep Sandhu, and a white Toyota Prius, driven by two other members of your temple.

[7] Harnek Singh did not notice the three vehicles following him and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The King v Sarvjeet Sidhu and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 3406
Decision Date: 28 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Sarvjeet Sidhu involves the sentencing of Sarvjeet Sidhu for his guilty plea to the attempted murder of Harnek Singh. Sidhu, influenced by Gurinderpal Brar, a spiritual leader at a Sikh temple, participated in a meticulously planned attack on Singh due to ideological differences. The attack, involving multiple assailants and weapons, left Singh with severe injuries, necessitating multiple surgeries and resulting in long-term physical and psychological trauma. Sidhu's cultural background and upbringing were considered during sentencing, emphasizing his vulnerability to manipulation by Brar. The court also acknowledged Sidhu's remorse and the time he spent on electronically monitored bail. Despite these factors, the court emphasized the need for strong deterrence and community protection, resulting in a nine and a half year imprisonment sentence for Sidhu.

Orders