Singh v R - [2025] NZCA 546

Criminal Law – Murder – Minimum period of imprisonment 

After harassing and threatening his 21-year-old victim over a period of around two years, Kanwarpal Singh, armed with a large knife, waited for her as she returned home from work.  She alighted from her bus and started to walk along an alleyway when Mr Singh accosted her and commenced a frenzied attack, stabbing her some 12 times.  She died at the scene. 

Mr Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years in accordance with the presumption created by s 104(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.   He appealed that sentence on the grounds the MPI was manifestly excessive. 

The application for an extension of time is granted.  The application to adduce further evidence is granted. The appeal against sentence is dismissed. 


Was the Judge correct to find that any of the circumstances in s 104 applied?  Held: Yes. 

The murder involved calculated or lengthy planning (s 104(1)(b)).  Even the further evidence filed for the purposes of supporting Mr Singh’s appeal confirmed the lengthy period over which Mr Singh had been ruminating over the victim, threatening her both directly and by way of the comments he made to others. 
The murder was committed with a high level of brutality and callousness (s 104(1)(e)).  Mr Singh committed a brazen and frenzied attack in public which involved a high level of violence.  Mr Singh’s actions leading up to the day and on the day was evidence of a hardened state of mind and level of callousness. 

The victim was particularly vulnerable given Mr Singh’s previous threats and physical tracking of her movements, together with her location in an alleyway where those who heard her screams were unable to reach her in time to stop the attack (s 104(1)(g)). 

Further, while taken individually Mr Singh’s offending could be seen to be at the lower end of each of the three factors, the Court considered that the particular circumstances of this case constitute exceptional circumstances for the purpose of s 104(1)(i).  It is the stalking behaviour and Mr Singh’s attitude towards the victim which makes this offending particularly chilling and which, in our view, means that the purpose behind the MPI of 17 years is engaged.  The legislative policy is to ensure a 17-year MPI for the most serious murder cases.


Was the notional period of imprisonment of 17 and a half years excessive?  Held: No. 

When the purposes and principles of sentencing are considered, the most relevant being accountability and denunciation as identified by the Judge, the notional minimum period of 17 and a half years (before the one-year guilty plea reduction) was within range. 

Were Mr Singh’s personal circumstances appropriately recognised?  Held:  Yes. 

The Court rejected the submission that Mr Singh’s exposure to violence in the home within a conservative culture predisposed him to react as he did.  Further, the principles of deterrence, denunciation and community protection will usually be more powerfully engaged where the offending is particularly serious.  In the context of murder cases, the need to give effect to the legislative policy of the Sentencing Act further constrains the courts’ ability to give discounts for background factors. 

The further evidence placed before the Court did not identify any contributory mental health factors which could be considered to diminish Mr Singh’s moral culpability.  Indeed, that evidence identified factors emphasising the need for accountability and denunciation. 


Was the imposition of the 17-year MPI manifestly unjust?  Held:  No. 

The Judge was correct in his view that the minimum 17-year term was not manifestly unjust.  The s 104 qualifying factors are of significance, Mr Singh’s culpability sits well within the range of cases caught by s 104 and his personal mitigating circumstances are weak.