The Queen v Beant Singh - [2022] NZHC 2243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2020-092-009400

[2022] NZHC 2243

THE QUEEN

v

BEANT SINGH

Hearing: 2 September 2022

Appearances:

A Al-Janabi for the Crown

S Tait & J Hudson for the Defendant (with an interpreter)

Judgment:

2 September 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF TAHANA J

Solicitors:/Counsel
Crown Solicitor, Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland S Tait, Barrister, Auckland

R v SINGH [Sentencing Notes] [2022] NZHC 2243 [2 September 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Singh, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to the murder of your wife Binderpal Kaur on 20 October 2020.

[2] Given you have pleaded guilty to murder, I must sentence you to life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.1 The defence accept that it would not be manifestly unjust.

[3] The issue to be determined today then is what period you must serve Mr Singh before you become eligible for parole: the minimum period of imprisonment. That period must be not less than 10 years.2

[4] I will consider the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment after I have set out the relevant background.

Facts of the offending

[5] You were married to Ms Kaur in 2010. It was an arranged marriage. Ms Kaur was residing in New Zealand. You came to New Zealand and began living together in 2013.

[6] Your relationship was volatile and the inability to conceive children was a source of tension.

[7] The summary of facts records that Ms Kaur had spoken to family members about a number of instances where you had been violent towards her or had caused her to fear that you might kill her.

[8] On the morning of Sunday 20 September 2020 between 7 and 11am, Ms Kaur was at work. She returned home around midday. At approximately 1.30pm, you both attended prayers, went grocery-shopping and returned home.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172(1) and Sentencing Act 2002, s 102. This sentence applies unless it would be manifestly unjust to impose life imprisonment. There is no dispute that the very high Standard under s 102 would not be met in the current case.
2 Section 103.

[9] The pre-sentence reports records that you told the report writer that Ms Kaur called home to India and then an argument ensued between the two of you. You were the only person home with Ms Kaur. You killed Ms Kaur.

Subsequent events

[10] Sometime that evening between 8.30 pm and 8.50 pm, you went to the home of your friend [redacted]. You were distressed and told him Ms Kaur had a small attack and that there “is bleeding through her nose." [redacted] thought Ms Kaur had suffered a medical event.

[11] You returned with [redacted] to your home. On the way, [redacted] called 111 for an ambulance. When you went inside your home shortly after 9pm, [redacted] said he saw Ms Kaur lying flat on her back in the lounge. There was blood on her face…

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 Queen v Beant Singh

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Beant Singh [2022] NZHC 2243
Case: [2022] NZHC 2243
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tahan J presided over the sentencing of Beant Singh for the murder of his wife, Binderpal Kaur, on 20 October 2020. Singh had pleaded guilty to the murder, and the court was required to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment he must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, as well as comparable cases, to determine the appropriate sentence. The court found that the aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim, breach of trust, and the attack on the head and neck. The court also found that there were no mitigating factors present in the case. After considering the personal circumstances of Singh, including his lack of criminal history, foreign nationality, and limited remorse, the court determined that a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10.5 years was appropriate.

Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10.5 years, which means he will be eligible for parole after serving 10.5 years in prison. The court emphasised that this does not mean Singh will be released at that point, but rather that he will be eligible for parole consideration. The court also noted that the sentence was not meant to be manifestly unjust and that it would hold Singh accountable for his actions while also considering his personal circumstances. The court acknowledged the grief and suffering of Kaur's family and the impact of the murder on them. The final orders of the court were that Singh be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10.5 years.

Orders