THE KING vSUKHPREET SINGH
[2023] NZHC 3407
•28 November 2023
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 3407
THE KING v
SUKHPREET SINGH
Hearing: 28 November 2023 Appearances:
L Radich, J Tausi and L Taula for the Crown K Hogan and S Kumar for the Defendant
Sentencing:
28 November 2023
SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J
Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Manukau
Counsel:K Hogan, Auckland S Kumar, Auckland
R v SINGH [2023] NZHC 3407 [28 November 2023]
Introduction
[1] Sukhpreet Singh, you appear today for sentencing having been found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder. The maximum penalty is five 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
The principal offending
[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, along with the principal offenders, attended a local Sikh temple in East Tāmaki. Gurinderpal Brar was the spiritual leader of the temple. You are described as being his “right hand man”. Gurinderpal Brar inspired devotion and obedience from his congregation, but more so from his “chosen ones”. You and the principal offenders were all part of that inner circle.
[5] In the lead up to the attack, Gurinderpal Brar was angry with Harnek’s commentary on Sikh politics and religion. Gurinderpal Brar sought assistance from members of his inner circle at the temple, known as devotees, to kill Harnek Singh.
[6] About one week before the attack, Gurinderpal Brar approached Jaspal Singh as a possible recruit. He set out his plan to perform a "hit" on Harnek just before Christmas saying he "needed Harnek gone". Gurinderpal Brar procured a bag of
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 71, 173 and 312.
2 B (CA58/2016) v R [2016] NZCA 432 at [75]-[76]; and R v Connelly [2008] NZCA 550 at [14].
weapons, including knives and bats, and stolen number plates to be fitted onto a vehicle used in the attack.
[7] On 23 December, Gurinderpal Brar directed Jaspal Singh to drive to Harnek’s workplace and pointed out Harnek’s vehicle, a red ute. Gurinderpal Brar told Jaspal that the “job” was to happen that night. At about 6pm, Jaspal Singh returned to the temple and met with Gurinderpal Brar and Sarvjeet Sidhu. Gurinderpal Brar instructed Jaspal and Sarvjeet to see the plan through and gave them the bag of weapons and stolen number plates. That night, Jobanpreet Singh met with Jaspal and Sarvjeet in Papatoetoe. They switched the number plates on a black Ford Ranger before driving to where Harnek conducted the broadcast and waited for him to leave.
[8] Harnek left work at approximately 10:09 pm and began driving home. He was followed by the three offenders in the Ford Ranger and 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.
[9] Harnek did not notice the three vehicles following him and continued to his home address. As he pulled into his driveway, Hardeep used the Toyota HiAce van to ram Harnek’s ute off the road and come to a stop with the Ford Ranger to one side and the Toyota HiAce van to the other. Jobanpreet, Jaspal and Sarvjeet got out of the Ford Ranger and approached the red ute. Jobanpreet and Sarvjeet tried to break the windshield of the ute with a bat before moving to the driver’s window. Jaspal shattered the window granting the three offenders an access point to Harnek.
[10] They then used knives to slash and stab him all over his upper body, inflicting 40 wounds to his arms, chest, neck, and head over a period of less than five minutes. During the frenzied attack, both Sarvjeet and Jaspal were cut reasonably badly and stepped back. Jaspal also dropped his knife inside Harnek's vehicle. The three of them ran back to the Ford Ranger and fled the scene. Jaspal Singh called Gurinderpal Brar and said, “It’s done.”
The accessory offending
[11] It was at this point that Jaspal and Sarvjeet decided to drive to Gurinderpal’s house to ask for help with their injuries. Gurinderpal Brar was shocked to see them and told them to go to your house, which was nearby. When Jaspal and Sarvjeet arrived, you were waiting for them. They wanted to hide their Ford Ranger and began clearing items out of your garage to make space, but the garage was too small and so the vehicle was left outside.
[12] Jaspal and Sarvjeet then entered your house and told you what had happened during the attack. Jaspal told you that he believed the victim was dead. You provided rags for Jaspal and Sarvjeet to stop the bleeding from their injuries. Early the next morning, Gurinderpal arrived at your home and instructed the two offenders to change their bloodied clothes. You provided them with fresh clothes. Jaspal then told Gurinderpal Brar that footage of the attack had been recorded by a GoPro on the Ford Ranger, which was played. Gurinderpal Brar snapped the GoPro’s sim card after the footage had been viewed.
Impact on the victim
[13] During the attack, Harnek used his vehicle’s horn to alert his neighbours who called Police. Police attended the scene and gave Harnek emergency first aid, including a tourniquet to his arm. He was urgently transported to Middlemore Hospital in an ambulance.
[14] Absent the application of a tourniquet by Police responders, Harnek would have bled out and died at the scene. His injuries were extensive. During the initial surgery, multiple lacerations to the scalp and posterior neck and chest were temporarily stapled; a right anterior chest wound was packed to stop minor bleeding; the radial artery was repaired with a vein graft and the ulnar artery was ligated. Further damage was identified by CT scan. Harnek underwent multiple surgeries and is likely to suffer significant long-term effects on the use of his upper limbs due to nerve injury and scar tissue. It is unlikely that he will make a full recovery.
[15] Harnek’s victim impact statement was read aloud today, as provided for by s 22(1)(b) of the Victims' Rights Act 2002. I want also to summarise its message here.
[16] Harnek’s description of your attack is harrowing. He describes being trapped in his car while a gang of people stabbed him “uncountable” times. He says that he was certain he would die and mentally said goodbye to his wife and son. He was terrified and went into shock. When he regained consciousness, he was beset by excruciating pain and had to undergo many painful surgeries. He received over 350 stitches to his head and upper body. During his recovery, he was unable to feed himself or stand up without assistance. Apart from the physical pain, Harnek also lost his independence. He had been the primary earner for his young family and was rendered unable to work for a long period following the attack.
[17] Even though the acute danger of his injuries has passed, Harnek describes feeling fear and uncertainty about his future and that of his family. He fears for his safety and theirs, as do the family’s friends and colleagues. Harnek worries about the lasting mental impact of the attack on his teenage son and his wife, who, like him, are blameless. He says that his family has been transformed by the experience.
[18] Despite this, Harnek says that he tries to encourage himself and his family to return to their everyday lives and live without fear. He expresses faith in the New Zealand justice system and his right to express his religious views without persecution. I will quote from his statement directly now:
You came to kill me. You wanted to take me away from my family. You tried to silence me. You wanted to send a chilling message to all those who express their disagreement with your unorthodox religious views. But you failed. I am standing alive in front of you. I will continue to express my opinions and beliefs as I always have. The only chilling message you have managed to send is to people with the same views and opinions as yours that actions have consequences and that in a country like New Zealand, the law does not bend for you if your wrongful acts are in the name of god.
Approach to sentence
[19] Sentencing is undertaken by a two-step process as outlined by the Court of Appeal in Moses v R.3 At the first step, I must set an adjusted starting point for your
3 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583 at [46].
offending by incorporating the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence. At the second step, I will consider all aggravating and mitigating factors that are personal to you as the offender.
[20] I must also consider the purposes of sentencing under s 7 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Relevant to your offending is the need to hold you accountable for harm done to the victim and to promote in you a sense of responsibility for that harm.4 I must also denounce your conduct and deter you or others from committing the same offence.5 I consider also that the protection of the community is highly relevant given the nature of your offending.6
[21] I must also take into account the gravity of your offending, your degree of culpability as against your co-offenders, and the desirability of consistency with sentencing in similar cases.7 Further, I must consider the effect of the offending on the victim and where the offending is identified as being among the most serious of its kind, effect the maximum penalty prescribed by statute.8
Pre-sentence report
[22] A pre-sentence report has been provided to the Court. It records that you are 34 years old and have no previous convictions. You are from Punjab, India, and first came to New Zealand in 2010 on a student visa. You now live in New Zealand permanently and hold a residence-class visa. You are married and have two young daughters. You reported that your family is aware of your offending and have been supportive of you during the court process.
[23] The report notes that you are a devout Sikh and that your faith is important to all aspects of your life. You began attending the temple in 2011 and became involved as a volunteer in addition to worshipping. In terms of employment, you studied IT in Rotorua and worked in that industry until 2017. In 2018, you were employed as the operations manager for the Sikh Sangat NZ Trust, the charitable organisation that
4 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7(1)(a) and (b).
5 Sections 7(1)(e) and (f).
6 Section 7(1)(g).
7 Sections 8(a) and (e).
8 Sections 8(f) and (c).
managed the temple you attend and its other campuses. You were heavily engaged in working and volunteering for the Trust up until you were convicted.
[24] When asked about your connection to the victim, you stated that you did not know him personally but was aware of him, stating that “every Sikh person knows him”. You said you have no connection to him and that you were not involved in planning the attack. You described your relationship to Gurinderpal Brar as “not really personal” but related to the work of the Trust. You said that the other principal offenders are not friends of yours though you were familiar with them as being part of the temple’s congregation.
Submissions
Starting point
[25] The Crown refers to R v Sweeney, in which Pankhurst J identified three factors by which culpability may be measured for accessory charges:9
(a)The nature of the crimes committed by the principal;
(b)The nature and extent of assistance provided by the offender; and
(c)The outcome of the assistance provided, specifically whether it enabled the principal to avoid arrest or conviction.
[26] The Crown also point to Boyd v R in which Gendall J observed that sentencing for charges of being accessory after the fact to murder generally attract a starting point between 15 and 18 months’ imprisonment.10
[27] With reference to the factors identified in Sweeney, the Crown submit that the nature of the crime committed by the principal offenders was serious. The victim suffered extensive injuries and at the time that you provided assistance to Jaspal and Sarvjeet, it is likely that you believed the victim to be dead. However, the Crown
9 R v Sweeney [2013] NZHC 1413 at [11].
10 Boyd v R [2015] NZHC 822 at [40].
acknowledges that your assistance was not at a significant level and points to your not attempting to find an alternative place to conceal the Ford Ranger when it could not fit into your garage. They also note that your assistance extended only to unsuccessfully attempting to conceal the Ford Ranger, allowing Jaspal and Sarvjeet into your home, and providing them with fresh clothing.
[28] The Crown have also referred to R v Graham.11 In that case, the appellant assisted an associate who had fatally stabbed someone. The appellant met with the associate and picked up several items relating to the stabbing, intending to bury them at his workplace. However, when the appellant arrived at work, he was met by Police who pursued him and located the incriminating items in his car. At sentencing, Chisholm J accepted that the appellant had acted on the spur of the moment but considered his decision to flee from Police to be seriously aggravating. The Judge adopted a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.
[29] The Crown submits that your offending is broadly comparable to that in Graham but acknowledges that the appellant in Graham went further than you did to assist, having intended to bury the items he collected from the principal offender, and fleeing from Police. The Crown therefore submits that a slightly lower starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment is appropriate, with an end sentence of home detention. This is consistent with the lower range in Boyd.
[30] Your counsel, Ms Hogan, refers to a number of cases which she proposes are similar to your offending which applied starting points of between 15 and 18 months’ imprisonment.12 Ms Hogan agrees with the Crown that your assistance was not at a significant level. She submits that there is no evidence of premeditation on your part and notes that your assistance did not hinder the arrest or conviction of the principal offenders. Ms Hogan distinguishes your assistance from that provided by the offender in R v Reddy, who destroyed CCTV footage of a serious assault captured at the bar in which he worked despite having been instructed by Police to hold the tape. Winkelmann J had observed that it was aggravating to the offending that Mr Reddy
11 R v Graham [2004] HC Christchurch CRI-2004-009-2224 (14 September 2004).
12 R v Tamihana [2014] NZHC 89; R v Ovalau [2007] HC Auckland CRI-2006-092-10484 (13 March 2007) and R v Graham, above n 10.
“wilfully intermeddled in the investigation” by disposing of the CCTV footage.13 A starting point of nine months’ imprisonment was adopted.
[31] Ms Hogan submits that in your case, a starting point of at most nine months’ imprisonment is appropriate on the basis that your assistance was limited, provided over a short period of time, and did not involve concealing a weapon or wilfully intermeddling with the Police investigation.
Personal mitigating factors
[32] The Crown submits that there are no relevant mitigating factors in your favour. On the other hand, Ms Hogan submits that you are of previous good character, having no previous convictions. She says that your wife and two young daughters are reliant on you and that your wife has ongoing health issues.
[33] A letter of reference was provided from the Sikh Sangat NZ Trust, signed on behalf of the Trust by Maninderjeet Singh, its chairperson and trustee, and three other trustees. The letter describes your early volunteer work with the Trust in 2015 and highlights your role in the organisation over the years, including by organising prayer services, administrative support, and serving as the principal of the language school. The letter says you are dedicated to the Sikh community and have demonstrated a commitment to cultural preservation by teaching at temples in Rotorua, Invercargill, and Auckland over the weekends, in addition to your employment in the organisation.
Discussion
[34] Looking to the starting point, I would first note that the principal offending is gravely serious on the face of it. The attack on the victim was vicious and life- threatening, it was premeditated, and the victim was particularly vulnerable. It was additionally serious because the attack was motivated by religious and possibly political views.
[35] However, I consider that your assistance was limited in both its nature and effect. There is no evidence showing you had knowledge of the attack or prepared
13 R v Reddy Auckland High Court, CRI 2008-044-9035 (4 February 2011) at [87].
ahead of time to assist the principal offenders. They first sought help from a co- offender, who directed them to your home. While you did assist them by allowing them refuge after the incident and providing them with clean clothes, you did not go to great lengths to conceal the Ford Ranger. The interference with the GoPro footage on the Ford Ranger appears to have been done by a co-offender rather than by you. Looking to the ultimate effect of your assistance, there was no great hindrance to the arrest and conviction of the principal offenders as a result of your actions. On this basis, I consider the nature of your offending falls short of that in Graham and Reddy, although it is more similar to the latter. However, I consider it necessary to account for the seriousness of the principal offending and to denounce your conduct in light of the factors discussed and the effect on the victim, whom you believed to be dead at the time of your offending. A starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment is therefore appropriate.
[36] I note that while your counsel has provided a reference and submits that you are of previous good character, she has not proposed a discrete discount for this factor. Discounts for previous good character are typically awarded in relation to positive contributions to society. It recognises that the “fall from grace” for an offender of previous good character is itself a punishment and assumes there is greater potential for rehabilitation.14 While I acknowledge the evidence that your work with the Sikh Sangat NZ Trust represents a positive contribution to your community, that same organisation is connected to the principal offending. It is the basis for the connection between you and the principal offenders. The pre-sentence report noted that it was your “choice of associates” which contributed to your offending. In these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to grant a discount on the basis of the letter from the Trust.
[37] I have reached an adjusted starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. A sentence of home detention is therefore available under s 15A of the Sentencing Act 2002. The pre-sentence report records that your home address is suitable for electronic monitoring. Conditions which enable you to return to paid employment may be available as sought by counsel.
14 Manawaiti v R [2013] NZCA 88 at [16].
Result
[38]Mr Sukhpreet Singh, would you please stand.
[39] On the charge of being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder, I sentence you to six months’ home detention on the terms and conditions set out in the PAC report.
[40]You may stand down.
Woolford J
4
0