R v Amandip Singh

Background

AmandipSingh wasontrialintheSupremeCourt,chargedwiththemurderofJoshua Frazer. He was found guilty and sentenced to 26 years of imprisonment.

The death took place outside a caf on 31 December 2022 at 11:15 pm.AtthattimeSinghandhisfriend, SanchezAlexi,were traveling in a vehicle.They stopped at a red light at the intersection where the caf is located.Atthattimetherewereanumberofpeoplestandingonthefootpathoutsidethe caf, including Frazer. According to witnesses at the scene, Singh was seated in the front passenger seat, while Alexi was driving. Singh abruptly got out of the car and proceeded to confrontFrazer.SinghshovedFrazerinthechest,whothenrespondedbypunchingSingh, who fell to the ground. Alexi then got out of the car and ran to Frazer, pushing him away from Singh. Singh then stood up, took out a metal object, and then stabbed Frazer in the neck. Frazer collapsed, and both Singh and Alexi then absconded from the scene.

As Frazerwasfoundunconscious andbleedingheavily, he wastaken to a nearby hospitalimmediately, but hewaspronounced dead on arrival. A subsequent report by a forensic pathologist later stated that the cause of death was a stab wound that penetrated the gap in the left collar bone to a depth of 15cm, severingmajorarteries.Soonaftertheincident,policemadeamediaannouncement,releasing still images taken from CCTV footage of Singh and Alexi, asking them to assist police with enquiries.

On2January2022at6.40PM,Sanchezvoluntarilyattended the localPoliceStationand spokewithSergeant SarahWalsh.SgtWalshaskedAlexiwhatshecouldhelphimwith.Alexi told Sgt Walsh he wanted to hand himself in and help police. Alexi was soon after interviewed by Detective Sergeant Hamilton Roberts and Detective Faud Ahmed from the MurderSquad. He participated in an electronically recorded interview wherethe events abovewereoutlined, he was then arrested and remanded in custody.

On 3 January 2022 at 8.30AM, police attended an address where they arrested Amandip.Asearchofthepremisesfoundnothingunusual.AmandipwastakentoPolice Station and interviewed by Detectives Fitzgerald and Moorbank in the presence of his lawyer,Dennis.Aftergivinghisname,dateofbirthandaddress,Amandipsaidtopolice 'On the advice of my lawyer, I decline to answer any questions.'He remained silent during theremainderoftheinterview. Hewas thenformally arrestedand charged with themurderof Frazer and remanded in custody pending his trial.

The Trial

In the latter part of 2022, Sanchez Alexi agreed with the DPP to give evidence against Amandip Singh. The agreement was that Alexi would have his assistance to the police taken into account at his own sentencing hearing when the time came. Sanchez has indicated to the DPP his intention to plead guilty at that time to a manslaughter charge. The DPP has given an undertaking to provide evidence of his assistance to the police as a mitigating factor on sentence, subject to Alexi giving evidence at Singh's trial.

Amandip was convicted. He has instructed you to appeal. In your appeal submission, consider the following points.

The Crown Prosecutor called Sanchez Alexi to give evidence. The prosecution prepared thecasebasedon theinterviewswithAlexi,andthestatementhemadeto police in January 2022. The following paragraphs have been highlighted from the signed interview transcript of Alexi:

Q: WhatwasitthatAmandipusedtostabthevictim?Doyourecall?

A: Yeah. It was a chisel.

Q: Awoodcrafting chisel?

A: Yeah.Weusedtosmokeiceinthebackshed.Thereweresomechiselsonthe workbench. Reg used a grinder to sharpen it into this effin nasty pointed shiv.

Q: Nasty?

A: Shityeah.Reallyeffin sharp,likeacommando'sknife.

Q: How long would say this was?

A: Oh,aslongasaruler. Q: What, about 30cm?

A: Yeah.Hecarrieditwithhimallthetime.

Q: Where? In a bag?

A: No,helovedthatthing.Hemadeaspecialholsterforit.

Q: A holster? Do you mean a sheath?

A: Yeah,asheath,strappedto hisright thighunderhis jeans.

During evidence in chief, the Crown Prosecutor asked, 'After you pushed Mr Frazer, what happened then?'. Alexithenreplied,'I'mnotsure.Itwasallsofast.Idon'tthinkIpushed him.' The Prosecutorthenasked, 'And what did Mr Singh do?' Alexi replied, 'I can't remember.'

At this point the Prosecutor felt Alexi's testimony was unhelpful and sought leave of the court to cross examine him. The trial judge swiftly granted the leave, without seeking the defence counsel's views.

1. Discuss what submission you can make about the leave being granted. Your submission should refer to any relevant law and procedure. 10 marks - unfavourable witness

The Crown Prosecutor had issued a subpoena for Sharlene, to give evidence as part of the prosecution case. In introductory evidence, the Crown Prosecutor established that Amandip and Sharlene were living together and had two children, but they have never married.

Sharlene was clearly uncomfortable about testifying and began sobbing in the witness box. She proceeded to say to the court that 'this event was devastating' and 'I felt terrible having to give evidence against Amandip'.

The Judge then said to the Crown Prosecutor that 'an objection has been raised by the witness. I don't think she is compellable'.In response, the Crown Prosecutor submitted that because Sharlene was not married to the accused, she was a compellable witness. And that living together and having children together was irrelevant. The judge accepted the prosecution's submission and ruled that Sharlene be compelled to testify. 2. Discuss what submission you can make about the leave being granted. Again, you should refer to any relevant law. 10 marks - compellability of spouse witness try week 4

As the trial progressed, the Crown Prosecutor called Dr Berie Megabi, a Forensic Pathologist, who conducted the post-mortem on Frazer. The Crown Prosecutor established that Dr Megabihasbeenaforensicpathologistfor20yearsandqualified asbothamedical practitionerand pathologistattheUniversityof Gondar in 2020.Duringhisexaminationinchief,thefollowing exchange took place:

Q:DrMegabi,inyourreportyousay,ifImayputitinsimpleterms,thatthecauseof death was a catastrophic stab wound down through the left side of the neck. Am I right in saying that?

A: Yes. The injury was deep and surprisingly wide, severing multiple arteries in the neck and down into the area of the chest just above the heart.

Q: Woulditbefairtosaythatsuchaninjurywasmadewithsomeforce? A: Certainly.

Q: Andtherewould havebeen alot of blood loss?

A: Thelossofbloodwasfatal.Itwouldhavebeenghastlytowatch.Bloodwouldhave sprayed everywhere.

Q: I see. Dr Megabi, the murder weapon used in this case has never been found. In your opinion, what would be the likely object used?

A: Itwouldhavetobesomethingsharp,atleasttencentimetresinlength.Probably a knife, possibly a pair of scissors.

At this stage, the counsel for the defence raised objections to the Prosecution's questions, but the trial judge ruled against those objections.

3. What submission do you make about these questions being permitted? In your submission discuss any ground for objecting to the and any reasons why the trial judge's ruling may be flawed. 10 marks - evidnce from royal coision inadmisbble

1. -Speculation: The questions posed by the Crown Prosecutor regarding the likely murder weapon involve speculative opinions from the witness. Dr. Megabi's response that the murder weapon would likely be "something sharp, at least ten centimetres in length" and "probably a knife, possibly a pair of scissors" is speculative in nature and not based on any direct evidence or expert analysis of the crime scene. The defense may argue that such speculative opinions should not be admitted as evidence in the trial, as they may unduly influence the jury without providing any concrete evidence.
2. Lack of Foundation: The questions asked by the Crown Prosecutor lack foundation and do not establish Dr. Megabi's expertise or qualifications to offer opinions on the likely murder weapon. While Dr. Megabi is an experienced forensic pathologist, his expertise lies in determining the cause of death based on the post-mortem examination. Opinions about the likely murder weapon should ideally come from forensic experts specializing in crime scene analysis or weapon identification. Therefore, the defense may argue that Dr. Megabi's opinions on the murder weapon are beyond the scope of his expertise and should not be admitted as evidence.

are these correct arguements to make and what relevant case law and legislation can i use to back it up ( australian, vic jurisdiction).