Singh appeal refused by Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has refused to grant leave for appeal in the sentencing and conviction of Pranil Alvin Singh, convicted of multiple attempted murder and arson charges.

The appellant appeared before Resident Justice of Appeal Isikeli Mataitoga earlier this month.

Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 14 years before any release is considered.

The appellant was convicted of one count of arson, contrary to section 362(a) of the Crimes Act 2009, and two counts of attempted murder, contrary to section 44 and 237 of the Crime Act 2009.

It was alleged that the accused on the 5^th day of June 2020, at Nadawa, Nasinu in the Central Division, wilfully and unlawfully set fire to his house.

It was also alleged that Singh on the 5^th day of June 2020, at Nadawa, Nasinu in the Central Division, attempted to murder Aarav Krish Singh and Krishav Aayan Singh.

Grounds against sentence

The appellant submitted three grounds of appeal against his sentence:

• That the 14 years for the three charges the appellant was convicted in the High Court is harsh and unjust due to its severity.
• That the trial judge erred in imposing a minimum term of 14 years because he misdirected himself on the requirement of section 237 of the Crimes Act and
• That the trial judge erred in his interpretation of section 44(1) of the Crimes Act, when considering when equating the sentence of arson with attempted murder.

However, Justice Mataitoga said the 14 years of for non-parole may appear harsh and excessive, if there was only one count of attempted murder and one count of arson, but in this case there were two separate counts of attempted murder against the appellant’s children and one count of arson.

He said all of these offences charged carry life imprisonment as the maximum sentence.

Justice Mataitoga said he agreed with the trial judge, that in those circumstances, an aggregate sentence is justified to reflect the appellant’s total culpability and ruled that the three grounds have no merit.

The decision of the lower court stands.