The Queen v Beant Singh
[2022] NZHC 2243
•2 September 2022
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 and around her nose. There was also blood staining on the sofa.
[12] [Redacted] called 111 again. The 111 call taker talked [redacted] through how to perform CPR on her.
[13] The ambulance arrived at 9.20 pm. Ms Kaur was pronounced dead at approximately 9.41 pm.
Post mortem examination
[14] A post-mortem examination on 22 September 2020 confirmed that the direct cause of Ms Kaur’s death was neck compression. It noted the presence of multiple findings which are “frequently seen in deaths caused by manual strangulation.” There were abrasions and contusions to her neck and on her face.
Victim impact statements
[15] You have heard today from Ms Kaur’s whānau (extended family) they are the victims of your killing. Some are here in Court, some are on line and some have travelled from India to be here today. Their grief and suffering was felt in this courtroom. You have heard the family’s sorrow and anguish at Ms Kaur’s death.
[16]For ease, and to avoid confusion I will refer to the victims by their first names.
Jagdeep Singh
[17] Jagdeep is Ms Kaur’s younger brother and says a brother-sister relationship is sacred and loving. He says his sister was happy, funny, emotional, a dreamer, kind, honest and hard-working He spoke of his childhood memories with his sister. He says his sister cared for her family and moved to New Zealand so she could financially support them. Ms Kaur’s death has impacted him greatly.
[18] Jagdeep says by sentencing you Mr Singh, an important message will be sent to the people of New Zealand and India that you cannot kill innocent people. You will be held accountable.
Parminder Kaur
[19] Parminder is Ms Kaur’s eldest sister. She says she was kind, polite, honest and spoke with Ms Kaur everyday, when you were at work. They had a strong bond and she wishes that she could tell her how much she is loved.
[20] Parminder speaks of the unhappiness between you and Ms Kaur, and how Ms Kaur would try to hide it from her family. Ms Kaur was close to Parminder’s two daughters and now Parminder worries about her daughters marrying.
[21] She said that happiness left the family when Ms Kaur died. Parminder too feels shock and loneliness and cannot describe the pain and emptiness in words. She wishes Ms Kaur had not come to New Zealand. She says that even if you get life imprisonment, it will not be enough.
Daljit Kaur
[22] Daljit is Ms Kaur’s mother and says there is nothing worse than a mother losing a daughter. She now questions her existence and wishes it was she who had passed away.
[23] Daljit regrets that she could not make her daughter understand that it was okay to ask the police for help, that it was okay to speak to her friends about being abused by her husband and that it was okay to stand up for herself.
[24] Daljit questions why Mr Singh, you had to kill her daughter when the family gave you several opportunities to travel to India to divorce. Daljit asks who gave you the right to take her daughter away?
[25] She described Ms Kaur as good, that she respected her elders, was loved by her peers and she encouraged youth. She is struggling with the loss of her daughter and pleads that you be punished for what you have done.
[Redacted]
[26] [Redacted]. Ms Kaur was her [Redacted], - a second mother. She feels broken and can no longer trust others. She is now reluctant to marry and she and her family are grieving deeply.
[27] [Redacted] has had to be strong. She can speak English and has been the family representative. We have heard her speak today in Court. She has borne this responsibility while also studying at university. She had a dream to travel abroad and is saddened that her first trip is for being here today. She has been impacted and now struggles to show her feelings. She has changed.
[28] I thank the whānau for their statements and I acknowledge their grief as I sentence Mr Singh today. He mihi atu ki te tuahine e wehe atu ki te po. Moe mai, moe mai rā. (I acknowledge the passing of Ms Kaur, your sister, aunty and daughter, and may she rest peacefully).
Pre-sentence report
[29] I have read a pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections. You were interviewed via audio visual link (AVL) on 27 June 2022 with a Punjabi translator.
[30] You told the report writer you and Ms Kaur could not have children and were having treatment. You said this was not a stressor between you. When speaking about your relationship with Ms Kaur, you said there were no issues and that she had her own card and bank account.
[31] You explained what happened on the day in question. You confirmed that Ms Kaur had called home to India two or three times and you said she was angry. You said you had an argument which turned physical. You say you “were both holding each other’s neck.” You cannot recall when she became unconscious and you say that you did not realise what you had done until blood started coming from her nose, and she fell on the couch. You said it was a shock how you used your hands to do what you did to Ms Kaur.
[32] You explained that you do not read or write English and this is why you did not call an ambulance and instead went to your friend’s home to get help.
[33] When asked why Ms Kaur had told friends and family that she feared for her life, you said that you did not know why she would say that. You said “maybe the family made it up” and that “she had an angry nature.”
[34] The report assesses that you have a low risk of re-offending due to your lack of criminal history and you are unlikely to be in a similar situation again.
[35] However, your risk of harm is assessed as very high due to the nature of the offending with underlying factors of relationship difficulties, poor impulse control, violence and negative attitudes to women.
[36] The report writer stated you expressed remorse but said it was difficult to assess the level of remorse given the interview was via AVL. You said you were very sad and the day is still in your mind. I also note that you have provided a letter of remorse, which I will refer to later in my judgment.
[37]I will now turn to the approach to sentencing.
Approach to sentencing
[38] I agree with the Crown and defence that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. The main issue is the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment.
[39] I must be satisfied that the minimum term is necessary to hold you accountable for the harm to the victims and the community, to denounce your conduct, to deter you and others from offending in similar ways, and to protect the community.3
[40] In considering a sentence, I must consider the aggravating and mitigating features of your offending and come to a preliminary starting point. I must then consider whether any of your personal circumstances justify an adjustment to the sentence.
Starting point
[41] The starting point must be not less than a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. If section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Sentencing Act) is engaged, a minimum of 17 years’ imprisonment must be imposed. Both parties agree that s 104 is not engaged. I agree.
[42] The Crown submits the starting point should be higher than the minimum and should be 12 years’ imprisonment. Defence say it should be no more than the required 10 years imprisonment.
[43] In determining an appropriate starting point I must have regard to other cases to establish the sentences that have been imposed for comparable offending and compare those with your circumstances. I therefore first consider the circumstances of your case.
[44] Both Crown and defence agree that the aggravating features are vulnerability, breach of trust and an attack to the head and neck.
3 Section 103(2).
[45] You and Ms Kaur had been married for 10 years and the murder was committed in the home you shared. The relationship was troubled. Ms Kaur should have felt safe in her own home. Ms Kaur was also a long way from her whānau in India. She did not have them close by to support her. This is relevant to her vulnerability and the breach of trust.
[46] The cause of death was neck compression. You have admitted that you put your hands on her neck and you saw blood when she fell and became unconscious. There were abrasions and contusions to parts of Ms Kaur’s neck including the lower part of her throat. There were also facial contusions around the nose and right cheek area. The Crown says these suggest the infliction of additional violence. Defence says that these are consistent with Ms Kaur falling and not necessarily further violence.
[47] The manner in which you killed Ms Kaur is a relevant aggravating factor and relevant to your sentence.
[48] There is dispute as to whether a further aggravating factor is the “ongoing domestic violence” within your relationship. Your counsel say that the Police were never contacted and you have no previous convictions. You have not been convicted of any domestic violence.
[49] Against this Mr Singh, the Crown says Ms Kaur expressed her fears to her family that you would kill her. She disclosed instances where you are alleged to have kicked or slapped Ms Kaur and she shared a photograph of injuries allegedly sustained at your hands. The summary of facts say that the killing occurred in the context of domestic problems, aggression, possessiveness, assertion of control and violence from you towards Ms Kaur.
[50] I do not propose giving weight to any evidence that is not included in the summary of facts, which I understand is agreed. I acknowledge the submissions of Mr Singh that the sentencing today is for murder and that any allegations of family violence from previous incidents cannot be considered as an aggravating factor unless proven beyond reasonable doubt or agreed. I do not understand the summary of facts
to be disputed so I accept the matters set out in the summary indicate that Ms Kaur did have fears and express concerns about violence you had shown to her.
[51] The parties agree that there are no mitigating features. I also do not consider that the circumstances of the offending disclose any mitigating factors.
[52] Now I turn to the starting point of other comparable cases. I have considered the cases referred to by counsel, which I will footnote for reference.4
[53] In R v Jiang the Court did not identify a starting point but held that an end sentence of a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment was appropriate.5 Mr Jiang strangled his wife of 40 years. He did not call for medical assistance and lacked remorse. He did not plead guilty.
[54] In R v Callaghan the Court adopted a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment for the murder charge.6 Mr Callaghan struck his ex-partner and mother of his child a number of times about her head and face. He used a blunt instrument.
[55] In R v Poihipi Mr Pohipi was convicted of murder of his on-off partner. He punched her 11-20 times and kicked her face. The attack was described as “sustained and frenetic.” He was concerned and after 20 minutes called an ambulance and tried to resuscitate the victim. The Court adopted a starting point of 12 years.7
[56] The case of R v Singh involved a husband stabbing his wife multiple times. In that case, the Court determined a starting point of 12.5 years.8
[57] Considering the above comparable cases against the circumstances of your offending, I consider that a starting point of 11.5 years minimum period of imprisonment is appropriate. Unlike the cases where a higher starting point was adopted, here there was no premeditation, use of a weapon, frenetic attack or failure
4 R v Jiang [2019] NZHC 3442, R v Callaghan [2012] NZHC 596, R v Poihipi [2019] NZHC 3048,
R v Singh [2015] NZHC 2369.
5 R v Jiang [2019] NZHC 3442 at [53].
6 R v Callaghan [2012] NZHC 596 at [26].
7 R v Poihipi [2019] NZHC 3048 at [31].
8 R v Singh [2015] NZHC 2369 at [43].
to seek medical help. Although, you did not call an ambulance, you went to your friend’s house to get help. What you did not do is explain what you had done. Ms Kaur’s statements to her family as set out in the summary of facts are also relevant and indicate that she was scared for her life. So, I accept that this is more serious than the circumstances in R v Jiang.
[58] I turn now to your personal circumstances to determine whether further discounts are appropriate.
Personal circumstances
[59] The Crown accept that you should receive a 1 year discount off the minimum period of imprisonment because of mitigating features, which are personal to you. I agree and explain why.
[60]Mr Singh, you have no previous convictions.
[61] You have provided in your own Punjabi language your words of remorse. They have been translated, read to you by the translator and provided to the Court.
[62] In English, your words say you are “sorry for the pain and suffering” you have caused. You are sorry you took away Binderpal (Ms Kaur) and shattered her family’s lives. You regret your behaviour and think about your actions everyday. You say you wished you had controlled yourself.
[63] You also acknowledge the privilege that Binderpal gave you to come to New Zealand to better your future. You are disgusted with the way you treated her and that you ultimately took her life. You also apologise for letting down New Zealand.
[64] The Crown says your remorse is limited and points to the pre-sentence report where you made comments that suggest you minimised your conduct in the relationship. You suggest that Ms Kaur’s family had “made up” things and that Ms Kaur had “an angry nature”. You have not accepted that there were issues in the relationship.
[65] I accept that you have shown remorse but there are some matters where you have not accepted responsibility. I accept the submission that your remorse is limited. I now consider your other personal circumstances.
[66] The Court of Appeal has affirmed that it is appropriate to have regard to an offender’s foreign nationality when assessing the impact of a sentence – namely, the isolation and denial of family support may make the sentence harder.9
[67] Mr Singh, I acknowledge that you are not in your homeland of India and Punjabi, and not English, is your language. Your counsel submits that you have been exiled from your community after admitting you murdered your wife.
[68] The Crown say that your circumstances may not be as pronounced as in other cases given you went to [redacted]’s place (so have some extended family in New Zealand) and you have resided in New Zealand since 2013.
[69] I do consider that your being from India, away from your whānau (family) and your reo (language) is a relevant factor. While you may have lived here for nearly 10 years, it is not the same as it would be for those who were raised in this land and speak the language of its institutions. Your networks will not be as wide and your isolation may be more keenly felt. I do however note that you have been here for some time so that your circumstances are not the same as those who have not lived in New Zealand for the same period.
[70] I agree with the Crown that only a modest discount should be applied for your guilty plea given the proximity to trial (which was 3 weeks), when it was made.
[71] For these reasons, Mr Singh I consider that a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10.5 years will sufficiently denounce your offending and hold you accountable for your actions. I must emphasise that this is the period you will spend in prison before you are eligible for parole. This does not mean you will be released at that point.
9 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507 at [163].
Sentence
[72]Mr Singh, please stand while I formally sentence you.
[73] Mr Singh, for the murder of Binderpaul Kaur I sentence you to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10.5 years.
[74]Please stand down.
Tahana J
5
0