R v Ali - [2017] NZHC 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2015-092-6886 [2017] NZHC 63

THE QUEEN

v

FEROZ ALI AND JAFAR KURISI

Hearing: (on the paper)

Counsel:

L Clancy and J M Pridgeon
P Broad for Mr Ali
M S Sahu Khan for Mr Kurisi

Judgment:

3 February 2017

SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER OF HEATH J

[VARIATION TO REPARATION ORDER IN RESPECT OF FEROZ ALI]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 February 2017 at 9.00am pursuant to Rule
11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau
Counsel:
P Broad, Manukau
M S Sahu Khan, Auckland

R v ALI AND KURISI [2017] NZHC 63 [2 February 2017]

Variation of reparation order

[1] On 15 December 2016, I sentenced Mr Ali on charges involving trafficking of human beings, exploitation of workers and Immigration Act offences. The end effective end sentence imposed was one of nine years and six months imprisonment. An order for reparation was also made.1

[2] Since sentence was passed, counsel for the Crown has drawn my attention to an error in the schedule of reparation payments with which I was provided for the purpose of sentencing Mr Ali. The error relates to the inclusion of a reparation payment for a complainant who did not ultimately give evidence at trial and in respect of whom no conviction has been entered. That makes the correct amount of reparation to be ordered against Mr Ali $25,487, in respect of those persons and the losses identified in the schedule attached to counsel’s memorandum of 31 January
2017.

[3] Mr Broad, for Mr Ali, has been asked for any submissions in respect of this change. No opposition is offered.

[4] I vary the reparation order that I made on 15 December 2016 by substituting the sum of $NZD25,487 to be paid on the basis that no payment is to be made to that complainant, and otherwise as outlined in my sentencing notes.2 The Registrar may now act on the distribution of the sum of $FJD14,000 currently held in a bank account in Fiji by Immigration New Zealand as part payment of the reparation order.

Inspection of Court file

[5] An application has been made to access the Court file in respect of the criminal proceedings against both Mr Ali and Mr Kurisi.3 The application is made under r 13 of the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Document) Rules 2009. The factors to be considered on such an application are set out in r 16. Rules 13 and
16 provide:

1      R v Ali [2016] NZHC 3077, at para [64].
2      Ibid, at paras [60] and [64](d).
3      Mr Kurisi was sentenced today, 2 February 2017: R v Kurisi [2017] NZHC 62.

13 Applications for permission to access documents, court file, or formal court record other than at committal or trial stage

(1) This rule applies whenever the permission of the court is necessary under these rules and is sought to access a document, court file, or any…

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 [2017] NZHC 63
Case: [2017] NZHC 63
Decision Date: 3 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ali and R v Kurisi involved two defendants, Feroz Ali and Jafar Kurisi, who were charged with various criminal offences. Feroz Ali was convicted of trafficking of human beings, exploitation of workers, and Immigration Act offences, while Jafar Kurisi was convicted of criminal proceedings. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The primary legal issues in the case revolved around the reparation order made against Feroz Ali and an application to access the Court file in respect of the criminal proceedings against both defendants. The reparation order had been incorrectly calculated, and the application sought access to the Court file for journalistic purposes.

The court addressed the error in the reparation order by varying the amount to be paid by Feroz Ali. The reparation payment was adjusted to exclude the payment for a complainant who did not ultimately give evidence at trial. The court accepted the submission of the Crown's counsel and made no opposition from the defendant's side. The court also ruled on the application to access the Court file. While the court accepted the need for the reporter to search the Court file, it decided that a more limited order should be made due to the presence of sensitive personal information on the Court file. The court allowed the reporter to search, copy, and inspect the notes of evidence given at Feroz Ali's trial and permitted a more specific application to be made under the relevant rule if necessary.

The court made an order varying the reparation order to substitute the sum of $NZD25,487 to be paid by Feroz Ali. The court also ordered that the reporter could search, copy, and inspect the notes of evidence given at Feroz Ali's trial and permitted a more specific application to be made under the relevant rule if necessary. This judgment was delivered on 3 February 2017, at 9.00am, and the Registrar was directed to act on the distribution of the sum of $FJD14,000 currently held in a bank account in Fiji by Immigration New Zealand as part payment of the reparation order.

Orders