THE KING vSUKHPREET SINGH - [2023] NZHC 3407

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…

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 THE KING vSUKHPREET SINGH

Details

AGLC: THE KING vSUKHPREET SINGH [2023] NZHC 3407
Case: [2023] NZHC 3407
Decision Date: 28 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King brought charges against Sukhpreet Singh for being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder, with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, on 28 November 2023. Sukhpreet Singh was found guilty of assisting Jaspal Singh and Sarvjeet, who were part of an attack on Harnek Singh, a member of the Sikh religion. The attack was motivated by religious and possibly political views and left Harnek with extensive injuries, including over 350 stitches. Sukhpreet provided limited assistance to the principal offenders by allowing them refuge and providing them with clean clothes, but there was no evidence that he knew about the attack beforehand or took significant steps to hinder the investigation. The court considered the purposes of sentencing, including holding Sukhpreet accountable for the harm done to the victim, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, and deterring others from committing similar offences. The court also considered the effect of the offending on the victim and the desirability of consistency with sentencing in similar cases.

The court determined that Sukhpreet's assistance was limited in both its nature and effect, and there was no evidence showing he had knowledge of the attack or prepared ahead of time to assist the principal offenders. While the principal offending was gravely serious, the court considered it necessary to account for the seriousness of the principal offending and to denounce Sukhpreet's conduct in light of the factors discussed and the effect on the victim, whom he believed to be dead at the time of his offending. The court set an adjusted starting point of 12 months' imprisonment and decided on a sentence of six months' home detention with the terms and conditions set out in the PAC report. Conditions which enable Sukhpreet to return to paid employment may be available as sought by counsel.

Orders