R v Hamdi - [2025] NZHC 1277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-044-2896

CRI-2023-004-1193 [2025] NZHC 1277

THE KING

v

MUSAB HAMDI

Hearing: 22 May 2025

Appearances:

H Brown and S Meyerhoff for the Crown

R Mansfield KC and S Teppett for the defendant

Date:

22 May 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF BLANCHARD J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland Ron Mansfield KC, Auckland

R v HAMDI [2025] NZHC 1277 [22 May 2025]

[1] Mr Hamdi, you appear for sentence on charges across two separate proceedings.

[2]In the first proceeding, you were found guilty of:

(a)sexual violation by rape;1

(b)meeting a young person following sexual grooming;2 and

(c)failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.3

[3]In the second proceeding, you were found guilty of:

(a)indecent communications with a young person under 16;4 and

(b)possession of an objectionable publication with knowledge (x10).5

[4] Sentencing is a formal process that takes some time. That is because I must explain the reasons for the sentence I am to impose. You and all the people in Court, and any court that reviews the sentence, must know the basis upon which I have imposed the sentence.

[5] A key matter I have to decide today is whether to sentence you to preventive detention. That is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. You would be released only when the Parole Board is satisfied that you no longer pose a risk to the community.

The offending

[6]I will first summarise your offending.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 131B. Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178. Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 124A. Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
5      Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1983, s 131A(1). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

Rape and grooming offending

[7] In the late evening on 10 September 2022, you contacted the victim via Snapchat using a profile with the false name Carlos Louchiano. You had previously contacted her on Snapchat, but she had not responded until that evening. You claimed you were 17 years’ old. The victim informed you that she was turning 14 in December.

[8] You initiated a video call with the victim where your face was in darkness, and the pair of you spoke for between 30 minutes and an hour. The victim eventually agreed to meet with you. You then drove to her address, which was around 80 kilometres away, a journey of approximately one hour. As you drove, you kept the victim on the phone with you.

[9] At approximately 2.30 am, you arrived at the victim’s address. You induced the victim to sneak out of her house and get into your car. As soon as she got into your car, she realised that she was not meeting a 17 year old.

[10] You began driving towards a remote, unknown location. While driving, you began rubbing and…

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 Hamdi

Details

AGLC: R v Hamdi [2025] NZHC 1277
Case: [2025] NZHC 1277
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Musab Hamdi was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, on charges from two separate proceedings. In the first proceeding, he was found guilty of sexual violation by rape, meeting a young person following sexual grooming, and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. In the second proceeding, he was found guilty of indecent communications with a young person under 16 and possession of an objectionable publication with knowledge. The court had to decide whether to sentence Hamdi to preventive detention, a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. The court also had to determine the appropriate finite sentence, considering the nature and extent of the offending, personal circumstances, and whether any uplifts or reductions should be applied. The court considered expert reports to assess Hamdi's risk of reoffending and his efforts to address his offending. The court concluded that preventive detention was required due to the pattern of serious offending, the seriousness of harm caused by the offending, Hamdi's tendency to commit serious offences in the future, and his lack of responsibility for his actions. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and ordered that Hamdi be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register.

In summary, the court found Hamdi guilty of multiple serious sexual offences and sentenced him to preventive detention, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. The court also imposed concurrent sentences for the other charges. The decision was based on the nature and extent of the offending, the harm caused to the victims and the community, Hamdi's pattern of serious offending, and his lack of responsibility and unwillingness to engage in rehabilitation. The court considered expert reports and the principles of sentencing to determine the appropriate sentence. The court concluded that preventive detention was necessary to protect the community from Hamdi, given his high risk of reoffending.

Orders