Ali v Police - [2025] NZHC 1079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-209

[2025] NZHC 1079

BETWEEN
ZOEB AHSAN ALI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 May 2025

Appearances:

G Qaisrani for the Appellant

A Al-Janabi for the Respondent

Judgment:

6 May 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

ALI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1079 [6 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of District Court Judge McDonald declining the appellant’s application for electronically monitored (EM) bail to an address in Papakura, and pending an appeal against sentence to this Court.1

[2] On 25 February 2025, Mr Ali, the appellant, was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment2 for charges of grooming for sexual conduct with a young person3 and indecent communication with a young person under 16.4 Both those charges carry a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

[3] Mr Ali’s sentence appeal is brought on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been commuted to home detention. The substantive appeal hearing is scheduled for 3 June 2025 in this Court.

[4] The appellant submits that the District Court Judge was in error in failing to consider and give appropriate weight to relevant matters, in particular failing properly to assess the risk considerations under s 8 of the Bail Act 2000 (the Act), and assessing that a sentence of imprisonment was unlikely to be changed on appeal.

[5] The Police oppose the appeal on the basis that the District Court Judge was correct to decline bail pending an appeal because the appellant was and is unable to discharge the onus on him to show that bail would otherwise be in the interests of justice.

Background facts

[6] I turn to consider the facts of the offending. The appellant groomed the 14-year-old victim with a series of sexually explicit messages and communications. This included masturbating in front of her via a video call. He knew that she was 14 years old. In December 2023, he arrived at her address with gifts and perfume and

1      Police v Ali [2025] NZDC 6513 [decision under appeal].
2      Police v Ali [2025] NZDC 4059.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 131AB. Maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 124A. Maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.

hugged her. The victim’s brother saw the interaction, informed their parents and the communications were subsequently discovered.

Procedural background

[7] The appellant first appeared on 18 September 2024. He was granted bail 12 days later on 30 October 2024. Following his entry of a guilty plea to amended charges on 4 December 2024, he proceeded to sentencing on 25 February this year.

[8] Following sentence, he reappeared before Judge McDonald to advance an application for bail pending appeal. The Judge was provided with two sets of documents in support of the application, which included a pre-sentence report to establish technical feasibility for electronic monitoring.

[9] Judge McDonald identified that the application for bail pending appeal…

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 1079
Case: [2025] NZHC 1079
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zoeb Ahsan Ali sought leave to appeal against the District Court decision declining his application for electronically monitored (EM) bail. He was appealing against a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for charges of grooming and indecent communication with a young person. The High Court found no error in the District Court Judge’s approach or decision. The Judge had correctly focused on the listed interests of justice factors under s 14 of the Bail Act 2000. The Court noted that the prospects of success on appeal needed to be very strong or compelling for bail to be granted, and the appellant’s grounds for appeal were not strong. The High Court found that the District Court Judge had correctly engaged with the aggravating features of the offending and the appellant’s personal circumstances. The Court concluded that the appeal against the District Court Judge’s decision declining EM bail was to be dismissed.

The Court dismissed the appeal against the District Court decision declining electronically monitored bail.

Orders