THE KING vGURINDERPAL SINGH BRAR - [2023] NZHC 3405

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF 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 3405

THE KING

v

GURINDERPAL SINGH BRAR

Hearing: 28 November 2023

Appearances:

L Radich, J Tausi and L Taula for the Crown D Dufty for the Defendant

Sentencing:

28 November 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Manukau Counsel: D Dufty, Auckland

R v BRAR [2023] NZHC 3405 [28 November 2023]

Introduction

[1] Gurinderpal Brar, you appear for sentence today following a six-week jury trial that found you guilty of the attempted murder of Harnek Singh. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 14 years’ imprisonment.1

Background

[2] I am now required to lay out the relevant facts for sentencing as I have determined them, in accordance with the evidence and the jury’s verdict at trial.2

[3] Around 2010, you began organising small gatherings for the Sikh community at your home every Friday, which attracted about 20 or 30 congregation members at a time. At that time, you were a truck driver and described as a "simple guy" and a "normal friend". The congregation increased in size, and as a result you leased a larger space in Wiri to accommodate them. The congregation continued to grow, and in around 2018, you were instrumental in setting up a gurdwara in East Tamaki and later another in Rotorua.

[4] As the congregation grew, you began to change. You told people to call you "baba ji", an honorific indicating great respect. You wanted people to touch your feet. Some people sought permission from you to conduct everyday tasks. You became less accessible to the congregation and instead met with people one-on-one. You formed a close circle of devotees or "chosen ones" comprising of about 20 to 25 people from the wider congregation. You inspired devotion and obedience from your congregation, but more so from the chosen ones. The other offenders were all part of the inner circle.

[5] The victim, Harnek Singh, was also part of the Sikh community, but he had a more liberal outlook than you. You did not agree with many things Harnek was saying on the radio and online and considered Harnek’s views harmful to Sikh culture. You shared your views about Harnek with the congregation and, over time, you developed a plan to silence him.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 173 and 66.
2 B (CA58/2016) v R [2016] NZCA 432 at [75]-[76]; and R v Connelly [2008] NZCA 550 at [14].

[6] About one week prior to the attack, you met with your friend, Baljinder Singh, in the temple carpark. You had known Baljinder since 2010. You asked Baljinder to turn his phone off, before saying that you wanted Baljinder to kill Harnek, and would provide everything including weapons, a car, a…

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 vGURINDERPAL SINGH BRAR 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 3405
Decision Date: 28 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gurinderpal Singh Brar was sentenced by Woolford J in the High Court at Auckland following a six-week jury trial in which Brar was found guilty of the attempted murder of Harnek Singh. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 14 years' imprisonment. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the purposes of sentencing.

The court considered the gravity of the offending, the extent of planning and premeditation, the extreme violence of the attack, and the multiple attackers. The religious or ideological motivation behind the attack was also considered an aggravating factor. Given the severity of the offending, the court adopted a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment. The court found no mitigating factors in relation to the offending itself.

In relation to personal mitigating factors, the court rejected the submissions for discounts based on Brar's previous good character and cultural background. The court found that Brar's influence on his congregation and his role in the offending negated any discount for previous good character. The court also found that Brar's cultural background did not sufficiently mitigate his culpability for the offending. However, the court accepted that a discount was available for the time Brar spent on electronically monitored bail, and reduced the sentence by six months' imprisonment.

The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years to address the concerns under s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding Brar accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community, denouncing the conduct, deterring Brar or others from committing the same or a similar offence, and protecting the community from Brar.

The final orders of the court were that Brar be sentenced to 13 and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years on the charge of attempted murder.

Orders