Maid v The King - [2024] NZCA 84

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA344/2023
[2024] NZCA 84

BETWEEN	PREETAM PRAKASH MAID Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Wylie, Edwards and Hinton JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person T Simpson for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	27 March 2024 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The proposed appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hinton J)

Mr Preetam Maid seeks to appeal a decision of Judge Turner on 27 April 2023 in the District Court at Dunedin dismissing his application to commute a sentence of imprisonment to home detention.[1] In the same notice, Mr Maid also seeks to appeal Dunningham J’s refusal to entertain his appeal of Judge Turner’s decision.[2]
[1]R v Maid DC Dunedin CRI-2019-012-975, 27 April 2023 (Minute of Judge Turner).
[2]R v Maid HC Dunedin CRI-2023-412-37, 21 June 2023 (Minute of Dunningham J).
A preliminary question has arisen as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine the proposed appeal. The Crown submits we do not. For the reasons discussed below, we agree.

Procedural history

It is necessary to set out the procedural history in some detail.
On 18 November 2020, Mr Maid was convicted of taking an imitation explosive device into Dunedin International Airport.[3] On 27 January 2021, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by Judge Crosbie.[4] Mr Maid appealed his conviction and sentence.
[3]Aviation Crimes Act 1972, s 11 (maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment).
[4]R v Maid [2021] NZDC 1547.
On 10 September 2021, this Court dismissed Mr Maid’s appeal against conviction. It however allowed his sentence appeal and substituted a sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment.[5] In allowing the sentence appeal, the Court reserved leave for Mr Maid to apply to the District Court for his sentence of imprisonment to be substituted for one of home detention, noting advice to the Court that a proposed home detention address was not suitable.[6]
[5]R v Maid [2021] NZCA 456.
[6]At [72].
Mr Maid was soon to be eligible for release and, on 6 October 2021, he was released from prison. Between 10 September 2021 and 6 October 2021 he did not apply for his sentence to be substituted.
Mr Maid then sought leave to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. Leave was declined on 4 April 2022.[7]
[7]Maid v R [2022] NZSC 39.
The next day, on 5 April 2022, Mr Maid filed a document entitled “request for leave to appeal by person convicted” in this Court. The document was treated as being an application by Mr Maid for recall of its decision of 10 September 2021 dismissing the appeal against conviction. The application was founded on the basis that there was a “very special reason” why justice required recall. This Court disagreed. It said Mr Maid’s application was largely an attempt to relitigate his unsuccessful conviction appeal.[8] Recall was declined.[9]
[8]Maid v R [2022] NZCA 344 at [10].

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] NZCA 84
Case: [2024] NZCA 84
Decision Date: 27 March 2024 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Preetam Prakash Maid appeals against the decision of Judge Turner in the District Court at Dunedin, who dismissed his application to commute his sentence of imprisonment to one of home detention. The appeal also challenges Dunningham J's refusal to entertain Maid's appeal of Judge Turner's decision. The primary question before the Court of Appeal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court held that it did not. The Court found that the application to commute the sentence was made after Maid had served his sentence and was thus no longer subject to the short-term sentence of imprisonment, which was a prerequisite for making such an application under s 80K of the Sentencing Act 2002. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no clear appeal pathway for the matter as neither s 80M nor s 80J of the Sentencing Act applied. The Court also rejected the argument that the appeal could be heard under s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, as Judge Turner's decision did not involve a ruling on a question of law that met the criteria under that section.

The Court of Appeal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court found that Maid could have applied for a substitution of his sentence while he was still serving his sentence but did not do so. The Court also noted that a significant portion of Maid's submissions was about a report that was not before the Court during the appeal against his sentence, a matter that had already been determined by the Court in a previous recall application. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders