Maghsoudi v Police - [2025] NZHC 1590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-000755

[2025] NZHC 1590

BETWEEN
MOHAMMAD SHAHIN MAGHSOUDI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 26 May 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in person

MW Büdler for Respondent

Judgment:

17 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 17 June 2025 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. Copy to: Appellant.

MAGHSOUDI v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1590 [17 June 2025]

The appeal

[1] Mohammad Maghsoudi was found guilty of possessing a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse.1 He was ordered to appear for sentence if called upon within six months.2 Mr Maghsoudi appeals both conviction and sentence.

[2]As in the District Court, Mr Maghsoudi self-represents.3

Background

[3]The facts are simple, and uncontentious.

[4] On 20 February 2023, Mr Maghsoudi’s driving caught Constable Gavin Russ’s attention. So, he stopped Mr Maghsoudi. Constable Russ then noticed a knife protruding from Mr Maghsoudi’s trouser pocket. He asked Mr Maghsoudi to remove the knife and place it on the bonnet. Mr Maghsoudi did so. A photographic exhibit shows a black hunting knife with a seemingly sharp blade 12 centimetres long. Mr Maghsoudi said his religion required him to carry a weapon for self-defence. Mr Maghsoudi offered the same explanation, without elaboration, to another constable who was assisting Constable Russ.

[5] Both officers said Mr Maghsoudi shouted at them, failed to follow directions, and behaved aggressively towards them.

The (only) issue at trial

[6] Section 13A of the Summary Offences Act 1981 creates an offence of possessing any knife, in any public place, without reasonable excuse.4 Section 2(2) of the same Act provides “a person is in a public place if he is in any… vehicle, which is in a public place”.5 Consequently, the only issue at trial was whether a reasonable excuse existed in relation to Mr Maghsoudi’s possession of the knife.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A.
2      Police v Maghsoudi [2024] NZDC 32214. Sentencing Act 2006, s 110.
3      Mr Maghsoudi had a McKenzie friend in that Court.
4      The offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
5      See Police v Tito (1994) 11 CRNZ 609 (HC) at 612; and Khan (aka Rafiq) v Police [2013] NZHC 169 at [14].

Mr Maghsoudi’s trial case

[7] Mr Maghsoudi’s cross-examination of the Police officers was to the effect that he was entitled to arm himself because Police are armed.

[8] Mr Maghsoudi testified. He said he had done nothing wrong, and Police were “stealing” his knife. Mr Maghsoudi said the knife was a “pizza” knife, intended for use to eat pizza, and he was on his way to lunch. Mr Maghsoudi also said the Qur’an required him to carry a knife, citing 4:102, “keep your weapons with you, always keep your weapons with you”.

[9] The trial Judge, Judge C H Bennett, noted Mr Maghsoudi’s evidence…

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 Maghsoudi v Police

Details

AGLC: Maghsoudi v Police [2025] NZHC 1590
Case: [2025] NZHC 1590
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohammad Shahin Maghsoudi appeals against his conviction and sentence for possessing a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse. The District Court found him guilty and imposed a conditional discharge. The appeal was heard in the High Court at Auckland. Maghsoudi self-represents, and the police are represented by counsel. The sole issue before the Court was whether Maghsoudi had a reasonable excuse for possessing the knife. The High Court found that Maghsoudi did not have a reasonable excuse for carrying the knife, as his religious justification was not supported by credible evidence or recognised religious tradition. The Court noted that Maghsoudi's evidence lacked detail and did not align with the principles of manifestation of religion or belief. The Court rejected Maghsoudi's claims of sovereign status and non-consent to the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence stand.

Orders