Ahmed v The King - [2024] NZCA 273

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA81/2015
[2024] NZCA 273

BETWEEN	FAISAL MOHAMED AHMED Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Mallon, Palmer and Wylie JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person M R L Davie for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	27 June 2024 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by Wylie J)

Introduction

The appellant, Faisal Ahmed, seeks to recall a judgment this Court issued on 14 June 2016.[1] He asserts that there are fundamental errors both of fact and of law in the judgment and that the Court did not fully understand the issues his case presented.
[1]Ahmed v R [2016] NZCA 252 [Court of Appeal judgment].
The application is opposed by the respondent.

Background facts

On 6 September 2007, Mr Ahmed was at the public counter of the Auckland Central Police Station watchhouse. He was behaving erratically. He was asked to leave. He left, but returned later in the day, carrying a suitcase and demanding to be arrested and put in prison.
Mr Ahmed was approached in the waiting room by a Senior Sergeant. She asked him to leave more than once, but he refused. She picked up Mr Ahmed’s bag to move it outside. He then attacked her without warning. He repeatedly punched her in the head. She managed to pin Mr Ahmed’s arms to his side. Undeterred, he began to strike her about the face and head using his knee. Other police officers were quick to intervene. They managed to restrain Mr Ahmed. He nevertheless continued to struggle and fight these further officers.
As a result of the attack, the Senior Sergeant received cuts to her mouth, damage to her teeth, bruising, swelling and soreness in her head area. Mr Ahmed was arrested and put into a cell where he continued to behave aggressively. He offered no explanation for his actions.
Mr Ahmed was charged with assault with intent to injure,[2] male assaults female,[3] and resisting the police.[4] He instructed counsel and ultimately entered guilty pleas to the latter two charges. Presumably the police did not pursue the first charge.
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 193 (maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment).
[3]Crimes Act, s 194(b) (maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment).
[4]Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a) (maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000).
In 2008, Judge McNaughton, in the District Court at Auckland, sentenced Mr Ahmed to 12 months’ imprisonment.[5] A pre-sentence report and two psychiatric reports had been obtained prior to sentence. As proposed in one of the psychiatric reports, the Judge made an order under s 34(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 directing that Mr Ahmed be committed to a hospital and detained as a special patient.[6]
[5]Police v Ahmed DC Auckland CRI-2008-004-27207, 18 December 2008 at [25]. This sentence was concurrent with a sentence of one month’s imprisonment for the resisting police charge:…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ahmed v The King

Details

AGLC: Ahmed v The King [2024] NZCA 273
Case: [2024] NZCA 273
Decision Date: 27 June 2024 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Faisal Ahmed, the appellant, sought to recall a judgment issued by the Court of Appeal on 14 June 2016. He claimed that there were fundamental errors in both fact and law in the judgment, and that the Court had not fully understood the issues his case presented. The respondent opposed the application. Mr Ahmed had been charged with assault with intent to injure, male assaults female, and resisting the police, following an incident at the Auckland Central Police Station watchhouse on 6 September 2007. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in 2008, with a concurrent sentence for resisting the police. Mr Ahmed appealed his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by Courtney J, but the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was set aside and a conviction and discharge were imposed. Mr Ahmed then applied for leave to appeal the High Court’s decision, which was declined. He subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for special leave to bring a second appeal against his convictions, which was also dismissed. Mr Ahmed applied for a recall of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the special leave application, raising several grounds for recall, including that he has a microchip implanted in his brain and that he was not appropriately represented by his counsel when he entered his guilty pleas. The Crown opposed the application for recall, arguing that the application did not disclose any special reason why the Court of Appeal’s 2016 judgment should be recalled. The Court held that the application for recall did not disclose any very special reason sufficient to permit recall of the 2016 judgment. The various matters raised by Mr Ahmed in his lengthy application did no more than repeat the various concerns which he had previously raised. The Court was unable to test Mr Ahmed’s claims as to trial counsel error without a waiver of legal privilege and evidence from trial counsel, which Mr Ahmed had refused to provide. The application for recall was declined.

Orders