Rohit Deepak Singh v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Peters J
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] NZCA 436
• Court: Court of Appeal
• Docket Number: CA101/2019
• Date: 17 September 2019

[2019] NZCA 436

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

Court:

Miller, Peters and Woolford JJ

CA101/2019

Between

Rohit Deepak Singh

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Counsel:

M W Ryan for Appellant

E J Hoskin for Respondent

Criminal Sentence — appeal against sentence — convicted of murder — sentenced to life imprisonment with a Minimum Period of Imprisonment of 19 years — whether the sentence was manifestly excessive — Sentencing Act 2002

Appeal by Singh (“S”) against his sentence. S was convicted of murder and was sentenced to sentenced to life imprisonment with a Minimum Period of Imprisonment (“MPI”) of 19 years. S had been in a relationship with the victim Chand (“C”) which she ended. S became developed an ongoing obsession. He had entered her house at night with gloves, a knife and a second weapon and attacked C in her bedroom, inflicting 20 wounds in what the Judge described as a “frenzied attack”. One wound had caused C to bleed to death. It was apparent from other wounds that C had attempted to resist the assault, and she also scratched S's face. While C was on her hands and knees, S had struck her at least eight times with the second weapon, fracturing her skull. He had taken steps to conceal his involvement after leaving the scene by disposing of the gloves, his clothes, the weapons, and the backpack in which he had carried them. He rang the police shortly after alleging that he had been assaulted by three girls who had scratched him on the face whilst he was on his way to visit relatives. S's conduct after the offending was treated as an aggravating factor.

The issues where: whether the Judge had erred in treating S' conduct after he had killed C as a separate aggravating factor and whether the MPI should be 17 years.

Absent manifest injustice, an offender convicted of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment and an MPI imposed. S's murder of C had engaged s104 Sentencing Act 2002 (“SA”) (imposition of minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years or more) in three respects. It had involved calculated or lengthy planning; unlawful entry into a dwelling place and it was committed with a high level of brutality and/or callousness.

The length of the MPI for a murder engaging s104 SA was to be determined by considering; the degree of culpability of the instant case in relation to that involved in the ‘standard range of murders’, the policy of s104 SA and then deciding what MPI was justified in all the circumstances of the case. If the appropriate MPI was 17 years or more, then the MPI imposed must reflect that assessment.

S' conduct after the event would not only be relevant if it served to render his offending sufficiently brutal or cruel or callous to bring it within s104(1)(e) SA. It may be relevant to that, but it may also be relevant as another “applicable aggravating factor”. Even if S' actions after the offending were disregarded, the 19-year MPI would not be manifestly excessive. The Court had adopted a 19-year MPI in several other cases in which a defendant had murdered his estranged partner in similar circumstances to S.

The Judge's MPI of 19 years was within range. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Peters J)

1 Mr Singh was convicted of the murder of Ms Arishma Chand following a jury trial before Powell J in October and November 2018. On 14 February 2019, the Judge sentenced Mr Singh to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 19 years. 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether an MPI of 19 years was manifestly excessive. Mr Ryan, for Mr Singh, submits that it was and that no more than 17 years was required. 2

Facts

2 Ms Chand and Mr Singh had previously been in a relationship which she ended in August 2016. Thereafter, Mr Singh developed what the Judge described as “an ongoing obsession” with Ms Chand that evidenced itself in various ways, such as stalking her and sending her numerous messages. 3

3 The Judge was satisfied that Mr Singh had decided to kill Ms Chand by 10 November 2017. Instead of going to work that day, Mr Singh drove to Ms Chand's address in a borrowed car and with a large knife. The Judge was satisfied that, but for the presence of Ms Chand's family, Mr Singh would have killed Ms Chand that day. Mr Singh returned in another borrowed car on 11 November 2017 and waited outside for much of the day. He returned later that evening in his own vehicle, with gloves, a large knife and a second, unidentified, weapon.

4 Ms Chand eventually returned home with her boyfriend. He left at 12.45 am on 12 November 2017. Ms Chand telephoned her parents at about 12.50 am who said they would be home in 10 to 15 minutes.

5 Mr Singh entered the house shortly after that telephone call and attacked Ms Chand in her bedroom, inflicting 20 wounds in what the Judge described as a “frenzied attack”. 4 One particular wound caused Ms Chand to bleed to death. It was apparent from other wounds that Ms Chand had attempted to resist the assault, and she also scratched Mr Singh's face. While Ms Chand was on her hands and knees, Mr Singh struck her at least eight times with the second weapon, fracturing her skull.

6 Mr Singh took steps to conceal his involvement after leaving the scene by disposing of the gloves, his clothes, the weapons, and the backpack in which he had carried them. Mr Singh rang the police shortly after 2 am, alleging that he had been assaulted by three girls who had scratched him on the face whilst he was on his way to visit relatives. Mr Singh's relatives and cell phone polling data contradicted this account at trial.

7 Mr Singh's explanation at trial for the presence of his DNA at the scene was wholly implausible, involving as it did a pre-arranged meeting with Ms Chand after her boyfriend had left, only to discover that she had been attacked.

Sentencing

8 In sentencing Mr Singh, the Judge first identified the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing, these being to hold Mr Singh to account for the harm he had caused; denunciation; personal and general deterrence; protection of the community; the seriousness of the offending; and consistency with the Court's treatment of others guilty of similar offending. 5

9 Next, the Judge identified three features of the offending which brought the case within s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Absent manifest injustice, s 104 requires the Court to impose an MPI of at least 17 years for a murder committed in particular circumstances or exhibiting certain features.

10 Thirdly, the Judge considered, and trial counsel for Mr Singh appears to have accepted, that Mr Singh's conduct after the offending was an aggravating factor. This conduct comprised leaving Ms Chand in a pool of blood, knowing her parents would find her within a matter of minutes; Mr Singh's attempts to conceal his involvement including his false complaint of assault to the police; and the evidence he gave at trial to the effect that he and Ms Chand had reconciled. Ms Hoskin, Crown counsel, accepted on appeal that Mr Singh's evidence at trial could not constitute an aggravating factor.

11 Fourthly, there were no mitigating circumstances.

12 Fifthly, having regard to other authorities and all of the above, the Judge considered an MPI of 19 years warranted.

Relevant statutory provisions

13 Absent manifest injustice, an offender convicted of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment and an MPI imposed. 6 The MPI must be at least 10 years; 7 it must be the minimum term necessary to satisfy one or more of the purposes and principles of sentencing identified by s 103(2); and, as we have said, it must be at least 17 years for a murder committed in one or more of the circumstances listed in s 104.

...