Maid v R - [2021] NZCA 456

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA68/2021
[2021] NZCA 456

BETWEEN	PREETAM PRAKASH MAID Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	15 June 2021
Court:	Clifford, Thomas and Muir JJ
Counsel:	L A Andersen QC for the Appellant J A Eng and R D Smith for the Respondent
Judgment:	10 September 2021 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe sentence of three years’ imprisonment is quashed and substituted for a sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment.
DLeave is reserved to apply to the District Court to commute the balance of the custodial sentence to one of home detention.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Muir J)

Introduction

Mr Maid appeals his conviction under s 11(1A) of the Aviation Crimes Act 1972 (the Act) for taking an imitation improvised explosive device (IIED) into the “security enhanced area” (SEA) at Dunedin International Airport (DIA). He does so on the basis that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable. He also submits that there was a miscarriage of justice on account of:
(a)omission of a material issue in the Judge’s question trail;
(b)failure by the Judge to make it sufficiently clear in his summing up that proof Mr Maid had placed the IIED in the location it was ultimately found was not proof that he had transported it through the SEA; and
(c)omission by the Judge in his summing up of a defence circumstance relevant to the quality of the Crown’s circumstantial case.
He also appeals the sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Crosbie in the District Court at Dunedin as manifestly excessive.[1]

Background

[1]R v Maid [2021] NZDC 1547 [Sentencing notes].

Mr Maid was an Aviation Security (AVSEC) Officer employed at DIA. His duties included screening passengers’ personal belongings, screening baggage for the hold stow area of aircraft and conducting perimeter checks of the airport for security purposes. He also had a role training other AVSEC staff in screening for restricted items (including IIEDs) and held a quality assurance position which involved him carrying out covert testing of the airport’s security systems from time to time as directed.
An external perimeter boundary divides DIA between what is called “airside” and “landside”. Landside is the area of the airport the public have access to. Airside, which includes the airport runway and surrounding area bordered by perimeter fences, is a secure area. Within that secure area are further areas, including the “baggage make up area” where stowed baggage is screened and readied for loading onto aircraft, which are categorised as “security enhanced areas”. SEAs require specific prior security authorisation to enter. Entry is controlled by security swipe access via doors and gates. SEAs exist by declaration of the Director of Civil Aviation and may only be entered by certain officials and AVSEC staff.
On 17 March 2019 (two days after the Christchurch Mosque attacks), Mr Maid was rostered to work…

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 Maid v R

Details

AGLC: Maid v R [2021] NZCA 456
Case: [2021] NZCA 456
Decision Date: 10 September 2021 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Preetam Prakash Maid appealed against his conviction and sentence for taking an imitation improvised explosive device into the security enhanced area at Dunedin International Airport. Maid was an Aviation Security Officer who, on the day of the incident, had access to the dangerous goods storeroom and the components needed to assemble the device. The Crown case was that he constructed the device, transported it in an AVSEC vehicle to the Hut, and deposited it there to create a security incident. The appeal against conviction was dismissed as the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The court found that the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to infer that Maid passed through the SEA carrying the IIED.

The appeal against sentence was allowed. The Court found that the District Court's starting point of three years and nine months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the purpose of the relevant legislation and found that Maid's offending was incidental to the mischief which the legislation was attempting to address. The Court considered the appropriate starting point to be in the order of 20 months' imprisonment, and after deductions, imposed a sentence of 17 months' imprisonment. Maid has already served approximately six months of his custodial sentence and will be automatically released in less than three months. The Court granted Maid leave to apply to the District Court to substitute home detention for the adjusted sentence imposed.

Orders