Offenders assail 10-year minimum period of imprisonment imposed
While acknowledging that it might someday address the approach to s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002, specifically in a case with a lengthy sentence and a low re‑offending risk, the New Zealand Supreme Court declined leave to appeal two sentences in the present proceedings.
In 2025, the High Court sentenced the two applicants in Singh v R [2026] NZSC 73, for their roles in drug and related offences involving over 700 kg of methamphetamine, dissolved in cans and bottles labelled “Honey Bear” beer or kombucha to avoid law enforcement detection.
Mr Singh pleaded guilty to representative charges of importing ephedrine and methamphetamine, as well as charges of possessing methamphetamine and cocaine for supply.
Mr Singh’s case involved 2.3 kg of cocaine and around 628–741 kg of methamphetamine, the biggest seizure of methamphetamine in the country as of the dates of sentencing and of the related Court of Appeal judgment.
As for Mr Kahlon, the court found him guilty of the manslaughter of a workmate and of possession of methamphetamine for supply.
The court determined that Mr Kahlon gave workmates “Honey Bear” beer, with a 21‑year‑old workmate dying after drinking from a can that, unbeknownst to Mr Kahlon, had methamphetamine.
The High Court sentenced Mr Singh to 22 years’ imprisonment with a 10-year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). It sentenced Mr Kahlon to 21 years’ imprisonment, also with a 10-year MPI.
The sentencing judge found Mr Singh’s claim of coercion implausible. The judge accepted that Mr Singh was not at the top of the international operation’s hierarchy and received $121,600 at most despite being motivated by significant financial gain.
Regarding Mr Kahlon, the sentencing judge acknowledged that he would not have known the exact quantity involved. However, the judge determined that Mr Kahlon would have been aware that the offending involved hundreds of kilograms.
Regarding a clinical psychologist’s report that addressed Mr Kahlon’s suggestibility and compliance, the sentencing judge accepted that Mr Kahlon was trusting of and loyal to Mr Singh.
However, the sentencing judge set aside the report upon finding that no degree of compliance with a request from somebody Mr Kahlon respected would have led him to assist with a large-scale methamphetamine operation.
The sentencing judge also rejected Mr Kahlon’s argument that financial gain did not motivate him, while acknowledging that his expectation of gain was much less than that of Mr Singh.
Before the Court of Appeal, both applicants appealed against their sentences.
The appeal court considered the MPIs appropriate. The appeal court noted that s 86 provided for a 10‑year MPI and anticipated the possibility of substantial imprisonment periods imposed with an MPI attached.
Citing Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, the appeal court said imposing an MPI could be appropriate for serious and commercial drug offending, as in the case of Mr Singh’s offences. Regarding Mr Kahlon, the appeal court said it could not overstate the harm caused by his offending.
Before the Supreme Court, both applicants challenged the imposition of MPIs in their applications for leave to appeal.
Mr Singh alleged that the proposed appeal raised questions of general importance about imposing an MPI under s 86 in the event of a lengthy sentence, given the inconsistent case law on this issue.
Mr Singh added that imposing an MPI for the lengthy sentence resulted in a miscarriage of justice and led to no incremental sentencing gains, only disproportionate severity.
Mr Kahlon asserted that the proposed appeal raised a question of general importance about applying s 86.
According to Mr Kahlon, the approach of the sentencing judge of the High Court of New Zealand, affirmed by the appeal court, involved applying s 86 in a routine or mechanistic way, contrary to Zhang v R, which stressed the necessity for a reasoned analysis of factors such as the total sentence imposed, personal circumstances, and the availability of Parole Board oversight.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the applications for leave to appeal as it did not deem this case an appropriate vehicle for a consideration of the approach to s 86.
The Supreme Court saw no apparent miscarriage of justice and no basis to question the Court of Appeal of New Zealand’s assessment that general deterrence essentially prevailed in light of the seriousness of the offending.
Regarding Mr Kahlon, the Supreme Court accepted that he played a more minor role in the operation. However, the Supreme Court recognised the harm to the community that manifested.
