Ali v Police - [2025] NZHC 1475

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-099

[2025] NZHC 1475

BETWEEN
ZOEB ALI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 June 2025

Counsel:

F G Qaisarani for appellant A L Chan for respondent

Judgment:

6 June 2025

Reissued:

10 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 June 2025 at 2.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

ALI v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1475 [6 June 2025]

[1] Zoeb Ahsan Ali pleaded guilty to charges alleging that he communicated with a young person intending to facilitate sexual conduct1 and intentionally exposed a young person to indecent material.2 He was sentenced in the District Court at Pukekohe to a term of 16 months’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Ali appeals against that sentence. He says that its term was excessive, and that he should have been sentenced to home detention or community work.

[3] I must allow the appeal if satisfied that for any reason there is an error in the sentence imposed and a different sentence should be imposed.3

Mr Ali’s offending

[4] At the age of 45, Mr Ali sent a series of electronic messages to a young woman. He asked how old she was and what she did. She wrote she was 14 and went to school.

[5] Mr Ali observed he was too old to chat with the young woman. But then he asked what the craziest thing she or her sister could do for him, adding her sister was “hot” and promising some gift he would like to give her, were she not too young. The young woman responded, comparing him to a “sugar daddy” and advising that as long as she got drinks she was “all good”.

[6] Mr Ali asked what the young woman would do for small amounts of cash. She indicated she had not performed oral sex before, but would be okay with that activity and full sexual intercourse on certain conditions. The messages continued, incorporating role play based on a theme Mr Ali suggested. The communications also included a video call, during which Mr Ali showed himself masturbating.

[7] At around 8.15 pm on 29 December 2023, Mr Ali arrived at the young woman’s home. She had suggested that he might tell her parents that he was a friend’s father. Her brother saw Mr Ali hug the young woman, and hand over $10 in cash and a bottle

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 131AB, titled “Grooming for sexual conduct with young person”. Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 124A, titled “Indecent communication with young person under 16”. Maximum penalty: three years’ imprisonment.
3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250.

of perfume. The brother alerted their parents, who gained access to the above electronic messages…

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 Ali v Police

Details

AGLC: Ali v Police [2025] NZHC 1475
Case: [2025] NZHC 1475
Decision Date: 6 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zoeb Ahsan Ali appealed against a 16-month imprisonment sentence imposed in the District Court for communicating with a young person intending to facilitate sexual conduct, and exposing a young person to indecent material. Ali argued that the sentence was excessive and that he should have been sentenced to home detention or community work. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the District Court Judge’s starting point was excessive and erred in not commuting the sentence to one of home detention. The Judge had selected a starting point of 22 months’ imprisonment, which the High Court found to be excessive. The Judge had applied a 20 per cent reduction for Ali’s guilty pleas and a 5 per cent reduction for remorse, but declined to make further reductions for Ali’s personal circumstances and rehabilitative prospects. The High Court found that while another judge might have reduced the sentence further, the Judge’s reduction was not manifestly inadequate. The High Court also found that the Judge erred in not commuting the sentence to home detention. The Judge had considered the purposes of sentencing but had not analysed whether the full combination of purposes and principles, deriving from Ali’s offending and personal circumstances, required a sentence of imprisonment. The High Court found that Ali’s offending was a one-off, and his generally responsible reaction to its detection indicated a fair prospect of his rehabilitation. The High Court imposed a sentence of three and a half months’ home detention, and made a registration order under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.

This appeal involved the review of a sentence imposed in the District Court for communicating with a young person intending to facilitate sexual conduct, and exposing a young person to indecent material. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the District Court Judge’s starting point was excessive and erred in not commuting the sentence to one of home detention. The High Court imposed a sentence of three and a half months’ home detention, and made a registration order under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.

Orders