DONALD DEV KUMAR SINGH v R [2023] NZSC 141

DONALD DEV KUMAR SINGH v R [2023] NZSC 141

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal correctly assessed the evidence and concluded that a full intoxication direction was not required on the factual record and that, although there was a breach of s 32, it did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice given the context, other directions to the jury, and the strength of the Crown case; no matter of public importance or appearance of miscarriage of justice arose to justify further appeal.

Citation
[2023] NZSC 141
Parties
Applicant: Donald Dev Kumar Singh; Respondent: The King
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (criminal) / Leave Stage Application Dismissed by Supreme Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Intoxication Direction, Right to Silence (s 32 Evidence Act 2006), Jury Directions, Miscarriage of Justice, Specific Intent, Summing Up
Criminal Law Evidence Law Appeal Procedure Intoxication Direction Right to Silence (s 32 Evidence Act 2006) Jury Directions Miscarriage of Justice Specific Intent +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Dev Kumar Singh

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (criminal) / Leave Stage Application Dismissed by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial Judge failed to give an adequate intoxication direction
  2. 2 Whether the prosecutor's references and absence of a judicial s 32 direction breached the right to silence and gave rise to a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of evidence and in concluding any errors were non‑prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal correctly assessed the evidence and concluded that a full intoxication direction was not required on the factual record and that, although there was a breach of s 32, it did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice given the context, other directions to the jury, and the strength of the Crown case; no matter of public importance or appearance of miscarriage of justice arose to justify further appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed