Maid v The King - [2024] NZSC 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 35/2024
[2024] NZSC 86

BETWEEN	PREETAM PRAKASH MAID Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M R L Davie for Respondent
Judgment:	31 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal Maid v R [2021] NZCA 456 is dismissed.

BThe application for leave to appeal Maid v R [2024] NZCA 84 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Mr Maid, was an aviation security officer employed at Dunedin International Airport. On 17 March 2019, two days after the Christchurch Mosque attacks, he assembled an imitation improvised explosive device which he carried around public and secure areas of the airport before depositing it near a small runway building. He then photographed it and reported the presence of a foreign object to his supervisor, air traffic control and five different media outlets. As the Court of Appeal observed:[1]
On the Crown case, Mr Maid’s scheme was intended to highlight security failings which he had earlier repeatedly raised at the airport. The Crown also suggested an associated financial benefit to Mr Maid in terms of the longer hours of work that may result from additional screening.
[1]Maid v R [2021] NZCA 456 (Clifford, Thomas and Muir JJ) [2021 CA judgment] at [14].
Following a defended jury trial, in which he denied placing the object by the runway building, the applicant was convicted of taking a prohibited item into a security enhanced area, contrary to s 11(1A) of the Aviation Crimes Act 1972. He was sentenced to three-years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2]R v Maid [2021] NZDC 1547 (Judge Crosbie) [Sentencing notes].
On 10 September 2021 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction, but reduced his sentence to 17 months’ imprisonment and gave him leave to apply to the District Court for home detention under s 80K of the Sentencing Act 2002.[3] The Court did not appear to have appreciated that the applicant already had an address which was suitable for home detention.[4] The Department of Corrections report confirming that fact had been omitted from the case on appeal.
[3]2021 CA judgment, above n 1.
[4]See at [72].
Despite leave to apply for home detention being granted, the applicant did not make that application. On 6 October 2021, after serving half his sentence, he was released from prison.[5]
[5]See Parole Act 2002, s 86(1).
An application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against conviction was dismissed in 2022.[6] In 2023, the applicant applied unsuccessfully to the District Court for cancellation of the sentence of imprisonment—an application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.[7] Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was declined in 2024, again on jurisdictional grounds.[8]
[6]Maid v R [2022] NZSC 39.
[7]R v Maid DC Dunedin CRI-2019-012-000975, 27 April 2023 (Minute of Judge Turner).
[8]Maid v R

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Maid v The King [2024] NZSC 86
Case: [2024] NZSC 86
Decision Date: 31 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Preetam Prakash Maid sought an extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal against two earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal. Mr Maid had been convicted of carrying a prohibited item into a security-enhanced area, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently reduced his sentence to 17 months, and granted him leave to apply for home detention. Mr Maid did not make that application, and subsequently sought to appeal against both the original sentence and the refusal of leave to appeal the 2024 decision. The central legal issues were whether the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to substitute a sentence of home detention, and whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal in 2024.

The Court dismissed both applications. In relation to the 2021 decision, the Court observed that the District Court had been in possession of a report confirming the suitability of Mr Maid’s address for home detention, and that report had been sent to defence counsel. The Court also noted that Mr Maid had not sought a substituted sentence of home detention in his sentence appeal, but rather sought a reduction in his sentence so that he would be released on a time-served basis. The Court further noted that the Court of Appeal had granted leave to apply for home detention, and that Mr Maid had failed to make that application before his sentence was completed. The Court saw no error in the Court of Appeal’s approach and found no prospect of a miscarriage of justice. In relation to the 2024 decision, the Court found that section 80K of the Sentencing Act could not be engaged after a sentence of imprisonment had been completed, and that there was no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal Maid v R [2021] NZCA 456 and the application for leave to appeal Maid v R [2024] NZCA 84.

Orders