Judge Singh addressed the Pravasi Bharativa Divas conference of the Global Organisation for People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) on the subject "State and Judicial Responses to Racially Aggravated Offences: Hate Crime."
In introducing his subject, Judge Singh quoted American Civil Rights activist, Dr Martin Luther King who said in an address to the US National Press Club: "It may be true that morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. The law may not change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless."
Judge Singh said hate crimes were of topical interest to minority communities, including persons of Indian origins and national resident Indians in their host nations.
"Our happiness, peace and tranquillity depend on the protections our adopted home state and the judicial system provide for us. Our achievements and productivity are assured when we and our families feel safe."
While New Zealand's record was generally good in this regard, there had been some racially motivated attacks in New Zealand which had been dealt with by the courts with a view to denouncing such offending and sending a message that hopefully would have a deterrent effect, Judge Singh told the conference.
"Various laws deal with race relations issues. In particular, s.9(1) (h) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides for enhanced sentence in a case where it is committed because of hostility towards a group of persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability; and:
(i) the hostility is because of the common characteristic, and
(ii) the offender believed that the victim has that characteristic."
Judge Singh said the offending needed to be attributable either wholly or partly to that hostility. "Often, the motive will be self-evident from the use of racist expressions, either in the course of offending itself, or in the subsequent incriminating statements," he said.
The rationale for treating racially motivated offences as an aggravating feature was because, they not only impacted on individuals, but also because the offences engendered fear among the whole group to which the offender belonged and fostered wider disharmony within New Zealand society. In particular, it effectively alienated the victim and his/her group.
In Wiremu & Buddock v NZ Police (30/03/2009), the accused were convicted of throwing pipe bombs and threatening acts, in the period April to August 2008, at the Manurewa Sikh Temple, Auckland. They had also defaced the temple walls by spray paint with obscenities, including sexually explicit depictions of male and female genitalia, said Judge Singh.
Furhter, KKK and Nazi swastika images were used as symbols of religious and ethnic hatred. Judge Singh said, that in upholding the decision, the New Zealand High Court had stated: "The need to denounce adequately offending motivated by hate for particular sectors of the community needs to be balanced against the outcome of the restorative justice conference ..."
While the Sikh community accepted the apologies offered by [W & B], it is far from clear that they accepted the weak explanations for their conduct. Impetuous conduct caused by the use of alcohol on four separate occasions, during which time pipe bombs were manufactured on two occasions, is implausible.
"Whilst the two prisoners were entitled to credit for facing up to their victims and apologising to them, that particular mitigating factor cannot outweigh the need for denunciation and deterrence in relation to the offending itself."
The High Court upheld the sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment for each of the convicted person.
Judge Singh said it was of interest to note the views of a Parliamentary Select Committee in regards to the law and hate crimes: "We want the law to say that we simply will not tolerate this kind of behaviour ... It is important for the court to send a real message on fundamnetal values. There is a different moral quality and a different risk to the society which we should be reflecting."
Judge Singh said that in R v Curry in the Court of Appeal, Justice Robertson had stated that: "It is impossible to avoid the stark reality that what occurred here was an outrageous attack with racial overtones permeated by arrogance and a total disregard for others by a group of vicious bullying cowards prepetrated on a young and defenceless lad.
"Behaviour of this sort is anathema in our society. It has overtones and aspects which call for strong denunciation and the imposition of penalties which will hopefully deter others who are minded to act in this way."
Judge Singh told the GOPIO conference there had been other cases of hate crimes in New Zealand including the defacing of various mosques in Auckland, for which the offenders were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
"The desecration of a Jewish cemetery resulted in our Parliament passing a motion condemning anti-Semitism," he said.
"And recently, the New Zealand Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee recommended that our Government raise concerns with Iran about the human rights violations and the treatment of the detained members of the Baha'i community."
Judge Singh said the foregoing exemplified the commitment of the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Judiciary to both denounce and deter racial hatred.
It was also important to differentiate between "hate crime" and "opportunistic crime", he said. "Often, PIOs and NRIs [persons of Indian origin and national resident Indians] and other minority groups are victims to opportunistic crimes.
"Our community members are generally in the frontline businesses such as dairies, service station operators, bank officers and retail businesses."
Armed robberies of such premises were generally committed, not because the operators were of Indian origin or Indian residents, but because such businesses carried cash and had valuables.
"Such crimes do not constitute 'hate crime' and it is important for us to educate our communities on ways to mitigate being targets."