Aramiz v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-485-36

[2020] NZHC 78

ABDU ALI ARAMIZ

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 4 February 2020

Appearances:

Mr Aramiz self-represented

F A M Manning for the Crown

Judgment:

4 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] On 29 May 2019 Mr Aramiz was sentenced to two years three months’ imprisonment for the following charges:

(a)One charge of threatening to kill;1

(b)One charge of aggravated burglary;2

(c)Two charges of assault with intent to injure;3

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 306, maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 232(2), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 193, maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment. In March 2019 a charge of assault with a weapon was amended to assault with intent to injure.

ARAMIZ v R [2020] NZHC 78 [4 February 2020]

(d)Two charges of male assaults female;4

(e)Two charges of driving while disqualified;5 and

(f)Two charges of breach of release conditions.6

[2] The sentence was imposed by Judge Barry in the Wellington District Court.7 Mr Aramiz now appeals his sentence on the grounds the end sentence was significantly higher than the sentence indication. The notice of appeal indicates an appeal against both conviction and sentence, but Mr Aramiz in his written submissions explained that he did not wish to appeal against conviction.

The offending

Breach of release conditions

[3] Mr Aramiz was released from Rimutaka Prison on 20 March 2018. He was inducted into the requirements of his release conditions on 23 March 2018. He also signed a written instruction to report to Wellington Community Corrections on 4 April 2018 at 1 pm and every week thereafter at the same time until advised otherwise. After failing to comply with this condition in May he was issued with a final warning for failure to report. On 18 and 25 July 2018 Mr Aramiz again failed to report to Wellington Community Corrections in breach of his release conditions. He did not offer an explanation for this non-compliance. The charging document also records Mr Aramiz breached his release conditions again on 20 December 2018.

Driving while disqualified (third or subsequent)

[4] Mr Aramiz has six previous convictions for driving whilst disqualified. In August 2014 Mr Aramiz was disqualified from driving for an indefinite period. At about 6 pm on Sunday 22 July 2018 he drove a car on Jervois Quay, Wellington. In explanation he stated he had just bought the car and wanted to drive his family back

4      Section 194, maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 23(1)(a) and (4), maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or $6,000 fine.
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96, maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
7      New Zealand Police v Aramiz [2019] NZDC 10356.

home. At about 8.30 pm on 16 August 2018 Mr Aramiz drove a car on State Highway 1, Wellington. He was stopped by Police for a routine traffic stop. In explanation he stated he was…

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 Aramiz v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Aramiz v The Queen [2020] NZHC 78
Case: [2020] NZHC 78
Decision Date: 4 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Aramiz v The Queen, the appellant, Mr Ali Abdul Aramiz, appealed against his sentence on the grounds that it was significantly higher than the sentence indication provided. The Wellington District Court had sentenced Mr Aramiz to two years and three months' imprisonment for various charges, including threatening to kill, aggravated burglary, assault with intent to injure, male assaults female, driving while disqualified, and breach of release conditions. Mr Aramiz argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that he deserved a lesser sentence due to his remorse and commitment to rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal examined whether there was an error in the sentence imposed and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The Court noted that the sentence indication was given only for a subset of charges and that additional charges were considered at sentencing. The Court further considered whether the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the starting points for the various charges were appropriate, given the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also found that the discount for guilty plea and rehabilitation potential was generous, and that the overall sentence was within range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the end sentence was appropriate and that there was no error in the sentence imposed. The Court emphasised that the focus should be on the final sentence, rather than the particular steps taken in calculating it. The Court noted that the sentence was within range and that the sentencing exercise had become complicated due to the Judge treating the offending as two separate sets of offending for sentencing purposes. However, the Court found that the overall sentencing exercise had become complex for this reason. The Court concluded that the end sentence was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders