Maid v The the Queen - [2022] NZCA 344

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA68/2021
[2022] NZCA 344

BETWEEN	PREETAM PRAKASH MAID Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Clifford, Thomas and Muir JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J A Eng for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	29 July 2022 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

The applicant, Mr Maid, applies for recall of this Court’s judgment of 10 September 2021 dismissing his appeal against conviction.[1]

Background

[1]Maid v R [2021] NZCA 456 [Appeal decision].

Mr Maid worked as an aviation security officer at Dunedin International Airport. He was found guilty following trial by jury on a charge of taking an imitation improvised explosive device (IIED) into a security enhanced area (SEA) in breach of s 11(1A) of the Aviation Crimes Act 1972. After taking it through the SEA, Mr Maid placed a satchel containing the IIED at the entrance of a localiser hut on the runway in an effort to cause a security incident to expose what he considered to be deficits in the Airport’s security system. Mr Maid was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, the Judge having taken account of the fact Mr Maid’s actions took place two days after the Christchurch Mosque attacks and of the serious disruption his actions caused.[2]
[2]R v Maid [2021] NZDC 1547.
The Crown case was circumstantial. It relied on extensive CCTV and access‑card evidence, as well as expert handwriting analysis of a note accompanying the IIED. No one, however, saw Mr Maid assembling the device itself or carrying it into the SEA.
On appeal, Mr Maid submitted there was no evidence he took the device into an SEA as there were different routes to the patrol vehicle that did not require him to pass through an SEA. Whilst this Court accepted the argument as conceivable, we held it was more than open to the jury to conclude, based on the circumstantial evidence as a whole, that the IIED had been taken into the SEA.[3] We also dismissed Mr Maid’s other arguments as to alleged errors in the Judge’s summing up.[4]
[3]Appeal decision, above n 1, at [29].
[4]At [33]–[38].
We did, however, allow Mr Maid’s sentence appeal and reduced the term of imprisonment to 17 months. The Judge had set a manifestly excessive starting point by focusing on the overall consequences of Mr Maid’s activities that day, rather than of the limited criminal act itself.[5] As we noted, had Mr Maid placed the IIED at the localiser hut without taking it through the SEA, no offence under the Aviation Act would have occurred.[6]
[5]At [61].
[6]At [17]. However, the Court considered Mr Maid could have been liable under s 307A of the Crimes Act 1961 relating to threats of harm to people or property: Appeal decision, above n 1, at [66].
Following our judgment, Mr Maid sought leave to appeal his conviction to…

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 the Queen

Details

AGLC: Maid v The the Queen [2022] NZCA 344
Case: [2022] NZCA 344
Decision Date: 29 July 2022 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maid v The Queen involves Preetam Prakash Maid, who was convicted of taking an imitation improvised explosive device (IIED) into a security enhanced area (SEA) at Dunedin International Airport. The conviction was upheld on appeal, but Maid subsequently sought recall of the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing his appeal against conviction. The Court of Appeal, comprising Clifford, Thomas, and Muir JJ, considered the application and declined recall, holding that the application did not meet the criteria for recall under Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2). The Court found that Maid's application was an attempt to relitigate his unsuccessful appeal, which was represented by experienced counsel, and that recall was not the appropriate context for challenging substantive findings of fact or law.

The primary legal issue the Court of Appeal addressed was whether the application met the criteria for recall of a judgment dismissing an appeal against conviction. The Court considered the exceptional and discretionary nature of the recall jurisdiction and the importance of the principle of finality. The Court found that Maid's application did not demonstrate a "very special reason" why justice required recall, as per the third ground for recall in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2). The Court held that the application largely sought to relitigate the unsuccessful appeal and failed to show any substantial injustice had probably occurred.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that recall was not appropriate in this case because Maid's proposed grounds for recall largely sought to relitigate his unsuccessful appeal, which was represented by very experienced senior counsel. The Court held that recall is not the appropriate context for a challenge of substantive findings of fact or law in the judgment sought to be recalled by recasting arguments previously given and re-presenting them in a new form, or putting forward further arguments that could have been raised at the earlier hearing but were not. The Court emphasized the fundamental public importance of the principle of finality and found that Maid's application did not meet the criteria for recall. The Court concluded that the application for recall was declined.

The Court of Appeal did not make any final orders beyond declining the application for recall. The conviction and sentence of Preetam Prakash Maid remain as previously determined by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Orders