R v Singh (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 51

R v Singh (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 51

Having regard to all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to commence murder proceedings against Mr Singh. The physical evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Ms Kaur having poured accelerant on herself and ignited it some time later; there was no DNA, fingerprint, accelerant or flamewash evidence implicating Mr Singh; the 5 to 10 minute delay between accelerant application and ignition, the absence of sounds or evidence of his presence in the laundry, and the evidence about the film Ms Kaur had been watching supported the defence case. The Crown's circumstantial evidence, family-member evidence and physical-evidence arguments did not make prosecution for murder reasonable, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for a Costs Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) After Acquittal for Murder / Post Acquittal Costs Application Following a 2019 Trial in Which the Jury Was Discharged and a 2021 Trial in Which the Accused Was Found Not Guilty
Outcome
Application granted; costs certificate granted under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) covering both the 2019 trial and the 2021 trial.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Cases' 'costs Certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Murder Proceedings' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'admissibility Rulings']
['criminal Procedure' 'costs' 'evidence'] ['costs in Criminal Cases' 'costs Certificate After Acquittal' 'reasonableness of Instituting Murder Proceedings' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'admissibility Rulings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Costs Certificate Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (nsw) After Acquittal for Murder / Post Acquittal Costs Application Following a 2019 Trial in Which the Jury Was Discharged and a 2021 Trial in Which the Accused Was Found Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, if the prosecution had before proceedings were instituted been in possession of evidence of all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute murder proceedings against Kulwinder Singh.' 'Whether any act or omission of Mr Singh that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.' 'Whether the costs certificate should cover both the 2019 trial and the 2021 trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to all relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to commence murder proceedings against Mr Singh. The physical evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Ms Kaur having poured accelerant on herself and ignited it some time later; there was no DNA, fingerprint, accelerant or flamewash evidence implicating Mr Singh; the 5 to 10 minute delay between accelerant application and ignition, the absence of sounds or evidence of his presence in the laundry, and the evidence about the film Ms Kaur had been watching supported the defence case. The Crown's circumstantial evidence, family-member evidence and physical-evidence arguments did not make prosecution for murder reasonable, and...

Court Disposition

Application granted; costs certificate granted under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) covering both the 2019 trial and the 2021 trial.

Orders

  • ['In relation to his acquittal for murder, I grant Kulwinder Singh a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) certifying: If the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all of the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to...