WARNING: This story contains graphic content. Reader discretion is advised.
The family of the victim killed in a 2024 pedestrian collision say the two men charged in connection with his death treated him “like a piece of garbage, dumping him on the side of the road.”
Victim impact statements were read in court on Thursday, May 22 during a sentencing hearing for Gaganpreet Singh and Jagdeep Singh. The two pleaded guilty in Surrey provincial court on Jan. 6 and Feb. 7, respectively, to the dangerous operation of a conveyance, failing to stop after hitting a person, and interfering with a dead body.
The charges stem from a collision on Jan. 27, 2024, when Surrey RCMP responded to a report of a pedestrian hit in the 13400-block of 105 Avenue around 1:45 a.m. The pedestrian had been dragged under the car for 1.3 km.
The two accused were in Surrey Provincial Court Thursday (May 22) for a sentencing hearing before Judge Mark Jette.
The Crown read two victim impact statements, one from the victim's wife and the other from his mother-in-law.
The family of the victim asked for privacy and that their family member not be named.
Both statements described the kind of man the victim was. He was a loving husband and father to his two children; a strong, caring, Cree man who taught his children about their Indigenous culture and heritage. He was an intergenerational residential school survivor.
His family said he also had a strong work ethic and was proud of the projects he had worked on. “(The victim) was known and loved by many for his approachable nature, wit, and kind spirit,” his family said.
The victim impact statements noted the accused prolonged the harm to the family by continuing to drag the victim for 1.3 km after the collision. The family noted the worst part was the accused men's lack of apology and remorse. They also spoke about the impact of not being able to view their loved one's body due to the severity of his injuries and about being “unable to follow the cultural and spiritual protocols that come with death in our culture, which include having an open casket.”
The family asked the court not to just see the death of the victim but also the impact it has had on his family, community and culture.
“I ask that the justice system acknowledge the full weight of this harm and the magnitude of loss, and the urgent need for accountability and healing be reflected," a statement read.
Crown cites mitigating factors
Crown prosecutor Adam Janun noted several mitigating factors in this case, including that the two accused pleaded guilty, were young – both being 22 years old – and had no previous criminal record in Canada or in their home country of India.
What made this such a serious offence was not the initial collision, the Crown said, “although tragic" – it was how the accused responded after hitting the victim.
The Crown and defence counsel for Gaganpreet Singh presented a joint submission recommending he be sentenced to three years jail, a three-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.
“The sentence breakdown is one year jail, consecutive on each count,” the Crown said.
The Crown argued that Jagdeep Singh should be sentenced to four years in jail followed by a three-year driving prohibition and a DNA order. The defence counsel for Jagdeep Singh was seeking a conditional sentencing order of two years, which would be served in the community.
Court hears about night of collision
The circumstances of the offence and the agreed statement of facts were both filed with the court when the accused entered their guilty pleas.
The Crown noted two different “agreed statements of facts” because Jagdeep and Gaganpreet pled guilty on two dates.
The Crown told the court the events that took place in the early morning hours of Jan. 27 directly before, during and after the collision. Gaganpreet, Jagdeep and a friend made a quick stop at a pizza restaurant. After leaving the restaurant, Gaganpreet drove Jagdeep’s Mustang about 800 metres to the intersection of 105 Avenue and University Drive. Jagdeep was in the passenger seat, and a friend was in the back seat. The passenger in the back seat has not been charged.
Around the same time Gaganpreet was leaving the pizza place, a married couple driving north on University Drive noticed something lying in the road. The couple stopped the vehicle to see that it was a man and called out to him, but he did not respond. The witnesses then called 9-1-1 at 1:41 a.m.
Five seconds later, while the witness was on the phone with 9-1-1, Gaganpreet was driving the Mustang northbound on University Drive when he struck the victim, the Crown said.
Gaganpreet was going 79 km/h in a 50km/h zone at the time of the collision.
The witness noticed that the victim was no longer on the road and believed the victim must have been “dragged under the Mustang.”
Gaganpreet stopped the car after driving about 50 metres before continuing. He stopped again at the corner of University Drive and 105A Avenue. At this time, Jagdeep got out of the car and inspected the front and middle of it. Gaganpreet also got out and looked under the front of the vehicle. At that time, friends of Gaganpreet and Jagdeep pulled up next to them in a vehicle.
A few seconds later, the married couple who had witnessed the collision pulled up behind the Mustang.
The husband got out of the car and ran up to the Mustang to alert Gaganpreet and Jagdeep that the victim was stuck under their vehicle. The Crown alleges that this is when the accused “became aware that the victim was underneath the Mustang.” The Crown played the 9-1-1 call in court and stated that Sarah Grewal, the defence for Jagdeep, disagreed with the Crown’s submissions that their client had said to the witness, “No, no, he is sleeping,” when he was told about the victim under the car.
Grewal said, “He did say ‘no, no,’ but what he said afterwards, in my respectful submission, it was hard to make out what he was saying and my client denies saying that.”
Gaganpreet and Jagdeep then got back into the Mustang and sped away, running several red lights along the way. One of the witnesses followed the Mustang in her car for a short time and noted the Mustang had run several red lights and was travelling at about 60 to 70 km/h. The witness then decided to return to her husband’s location near 105 Avenue and University Drive.
This is when Gaganpreet tried to remove the victim's body from under the Mustang but was unsuccessful. He then drove into a cul-de-sac near 109 Avenue and 132 Street. The Crown stated that the victim was deceased by this time.
The Crown showed surveillance video from a home in the cul-de-sac.
Gaganpreet got out of the vehicle and knelt by the front, and Jagdeep also got out and held a flashlight to help Gaganpreet see underneath it.
The Crown alleges that the two discussed how to remove the victim's body and decided that Jagdeep would reverse the car while Gaganpreet tried to remove the body. It took several attempts to dislodge the victim before fleeing the scene at 1:47 a.m.
Then Jagdeep got into the driver's seat and Gaganpreet got into the front passenger seat and they drove away.
In response to the witness's 9-1-1 call, police were searching the area for the Mustang. At 1:48 a.m., a Surrey Police officer spotted the vehicle and “conducted a vehicle stop.” All three individuals in the car, including Gaganpreet and Jagdeep, were arrested for failing to remain at the scene of the collision. One of the officers noted that Gaganpreet’s clothing was wet and dirty and asked him why. He told the officer that he had just finished some construction work which was why his clothes were dirty.
Officers then located the victim’s body.
The victim died as a result of being hit or dragged by the Mustang, the Crown said. “I want to make that very clear, he was not dead before he was hit by the Mustang.”
Both of the accused spoke to the court and apologized for their actions and spoke, through a Punjabi interpreter, about the impact that night had on them and their families.
Deportation orders likely for both men
The Crown noted that CBSA is seeking a deportation order for Jagdeep and said if he is given a conditional sentence he will likely be deported, which would be equivalent to his charges being stayed.
The Crown noted that Gaganpreet is not currently subject to the same deportation order as he received a new study permit before his old one expired, but it is likely the CBSA will seek a deportation order once he is sentenced.
Both the accused came to Canada at different times on student visas from Punjab, India, and both hope to apply for a work permit after studying with the hope of being a permanent resident and then citizen of Canada. Gaganpreet came in 2022 and recently received a diploma from Vancouver Community College. Jagdeep had studied for some time at Cambria College and Excel Career College in Surrey before moving to Victoria for work at the end of 2023. He had hoped to apply for a work permit after finishing his schooling.
Gagan Nahal, defence counsel for Gaganpreet, noted during submissions that his client had taken responsibility for his actions.
“He demonstrated some insight into his offending behaviours, more specifically, his associations, impulsivity and risk taking behaviours," Nahal said, adding his client had reported feelings of "regret, shame and remorse."
“In addition to the criminal consequences, Mr. Singh will also be facing collateral consequence of inadmissibility and deportation, which gives him status as a foreign national in Canada.”
Nahal noted his client was “well aware” that he could face deportation before he entered his guilty plea.
Sarah Grewal, the defence counsel for Jagdeep, told the court: “Mr. Singh is deeply remorseful what his actions have caused. He tells me that he suffers from depression due to his actions. He thinks about the victim on a daily basis, and for that reason, he has reconnected with his religion, and spends time at the Sikh temple.”
Grewal told the court what his client had told her and how it was different from Gaganpreet’s agreed statement of facts.
“He did not realize that they had struck a body when initially that happened, and he had heard a loud noise, and he'd heard me thought maybe they hit a speed bump,” Grewal said. “Eventually, once they pulled over, then they eventually found out that there was someone under the vehicle.”
Grewal added that, “Now, after reflecting on his actions, he is deeply regretful, but he tells me that at that time he was in a high state of panic, and he agrees that he was not acting right, but it was also in a state of panic.”
The judge said he did not doubt that the two accused were panicking.
“It's too bad that one of them, even the third person who ultimately wasn't charged with anything at all, would not have found a bit of common sense to bring to the problem,” Jette said. Instead of focusing on how they could help the victim, they panicked and focused on themselves and how they could try and get out of that situation.
The Crown and defence counsel will be back in court Friday morning (May 23) to schedule a time for the sentencing hearing. It is expected to be in 45 to 60 days.
