R v Ali - [2025] NZHC 3536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-004-4716

[2025] NZHC 3536

THE KING

v

ASHIK ALI

Hearing: 20 November 2025

Appearances:

C Antenen and L Seybold for Crown

R M Mansfield KC and H Smith for Defendant

Sentence:

20 November 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 20 November 2025
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland R M Mansfield KC, Auckland

R v ALI [2025] NZHC 3536 [20 November 2025]

[1] Mr Ali you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment.2

[2] The charge against you was laid under s 156 of the Crimes Act 1961. Amongst other things this section imposes a legal duty on persons who operate things that, in the absence of precaution or care, may endanger human life. The duty is to take reasonable precautions against, and to take reasonable care to avoid, danger. Persons who fail to meet this duty will be criminally responsible for omitting without lawful cause to discharge the duty.

Background

[3] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that you were the director, majority shareholder and operator of a company that owned and operated trucks in the commercial transport sector. The company supplied trucks and drivers as a subcontractor to other trucking firms, operating principally in the roading infrastructure sector.

[4] On 21 November 2017, your company purchased an Isuzu truck. The truck was stopped and examined by the Community Vehicle Safety Team (CVST) on 30 January 2018. It was issued with a non-operational order, or “pink sticker” at that time due to defects the inspection revealed. This had the effect of cancelling the vehicle’s certificate of fitness (COF) with immediate effect and prohibiting the truck from being in service until it had obtained a new COF.

[5] On 21 May 2019, the truck was inspected by a Vehicle Safety Officer. This established that the brakes were in a dangerous condition and the vehicle should not have been in service because it was still subject to the pink sticker issued in 2018.

[6] In 2020 the New Zealand Transport Agency/Waka Kotahi contacted your company after it received advice from the police that they were concerned the company was not maintaining its vehicles to a safe standard. Then, in July 2020, the company’s trucks were inspected by NZTA and found not to be up to COF standard.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 156.
2 Section 177.

The company was directed that it needed to obtain new COF’s for the trucks in its fleet every three months.

[7] In August 2020 you told the NZTA that you had taken the Isuzu truck for a COF inspection to have the brakes checked and to determine whether it had any other defects. You said you were in the process of…

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 R v Ali

Details

AGLC: R v Ali [2025] NZHC 3536
Case: [2025] NZHC 3536
Decision Date: 20 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ashik Ali was sentenced for manslaughter following the death of Jonathan Walters. Ali, the director and majority shareholder of a trucking company, was found guilty of operating a vehicle that was not roadworthy, leading to the death of Mr. Walters. The court determined that Ali had knowingly used a truck with severe mechanical defects, including a faulty braking system, despite multiple warnings and orders from the New Zealand Transport Agency.

The legal issues centred on the determination of an appropriate starting point for sentencing, given the unique nature of Ali's offence, which was not driven by reckless driving but by the deliberate use of an unsafe vehicle. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence, the mitigating factors including Ali's guilty plea and his efforts towards rehabilitation and reparation, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Justice Lang determined a starting point of four years imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of Ali's gross recklessness and the tragic consequences of his actions. After considering mitigating factors such as Ali's guilty plea, expressions of remorse, and his intention to make a reparation payment of $20,000 to Mr. Walters' family, the court imposed a final sentence of three years imprisonment. Additionally, Ali was ordered to make a payment by way of reparation for the emotional harm caused.

Orders