NOTE: THIS IS A REDACTED VERSION OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE REASONS THEREFOR, SUITABLE FOR GENERAL PUBLICATION. IT ANNONYMISES WITNESSES A AND B, WHOSE ASSISTANCE IN RELATION TO A POLICE INVESTIGATION OF OFFENDING BY OTHERS, INCLUDING THE PRESENT
APPELLANT, WAS THE SUBJECT OF A SUPPRESSION ORDER. IN ANY PUBLICATION OR REPORT OF THIS JUDGMENT, THE ACTUAL NAMES OF WITNESSES A AND B MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA407/06 [2007] NZCA 328
THE QUEEN
v
SHAHRAM ARAM
Hearing: 14 March 2007
Court: William Young P, Chambers and Wilson JJ Counsel: P T R Heaslip for Appellant
A J Gordon and T R Bayley for Crown
Judgment: 2 August 2007 at 10 am
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed.
R V ARAM CA CA407/06 2 August 2007
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
Table of Contents
Para No
A massive drug operation [1] Issues on the appeal [4] Was the evidence given by B of other non-charged drug
offending in which Mr Aram was involved properly admitted?
The Crown case [14]
Count 4 – March 2003 importation [15] Count 5 – September 2003 importation [17] Counts 1-3 – March-April 2004 drug offending [32]
Mr Aram’s defence [37] Simon France J’s ruling [38] Our view [51]
Were the verdicts unreasonable? [56] Was the summing up on count 4 accurate? [61] Was the sentence manifestly excessive? [70]
A massive drug operation
[1] Shahram Aram was last year found guilty of five serious drug offences:
(a) conspiring to manufacture a class A controlled drug, methampethamine
(count 1);
(b)possession of a class A drug, methamphetamine, for the purpose of supply (count 2);
(c) conspiring to import a class A drug, cocaine (count 3);
(d)importing a controlled drug (the type of drug being undetermined) (count 4); and
(e) importation of a class A drug, methamphetamine (count 5).
[2] The trial judge, Stevens J, subsequently sentenced Mr Aram to 15 years’ imprisonment and ordered him to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of seven and a half years (50%).
[3] Mr Aram now appeals against both conviction and sentence.
Issues on the appeal
[4] Mr Heaslip appeared for Mr Aram on this appeal: he had not been trial counsel. In his 49 page, single-spaced, written submission in support of the appeal, he raised no fewer than 11 grounds in support of the appeal against conviction. In the course of the oral hearing, however, he abandoned or elected not to pursue nine of them. His decision in that regard was sensible: the nine dropped grounds were all hopeless.
[5] That left two grounds of appeal. We added a third, on which counsel filed further submissions after the hearing.
[6] We shall deal with the three live grounds of appeal in the following order.
[7] The Crown called evidence of other drug offending allegedly undertaken by two of Mr Aram’s co-offenders, A and B, who were Crown witnesses. [Note: in this redacted version of these reasons for judgment, A…
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 Aram
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Aram [2007] NZCA 328
Case
[2007] NZCA 328
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Aram, Shahram Aram appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, which held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict, and the appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as the sentence was deemed appropriate for the severity of the crime.
The appeal against conviction centred around three main issues: the admissibility of evidence provided by co-offenders A and B relating to non-charged drug offences in which Aram was involved, the reasonableness of the verdicts, and the accuracy of the summing up on count 4. The Court ruled that the evidence in question was properly admitted, as its probative value outweighed any unfair prejudicial effect it might have had. The Court also found that the verdicts were not unreasonable, as the Crown case was overwhelming. However, the Court identified an error in the judge's direction on the alternative charge for count 4, but determined that it did not give rise to any real risk of an unsafe verdict or a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The appeal against sentence focused on whether the overall sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentence was appropriate and well-reasoned, taking into account the totality of Aram's offending and the relevant sentencing principles. The Court dismissed the appeal against sentence.