Legal Research
Cases
R v Sabuncuoglu

R v Sabuncuoglu

Case [2008] NZCA 448 30 October 2008

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Discount for guilty plea

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Consequences of imprisonment for 12 months or more

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA298/2008
[2008] NZCA 448
THE QUEEN
v
NIHAT SABUNCUOGLU
Hearing:15 September 2008

Court:Robertson, Wild and Cooper JJ
Counsel:A G V Rogers and R P McLeod for Appellant

T Epati for Crown

Judgment:30 October 2008 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Cooper J)
[1]        This is an appeal against an effective sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Gittos when the appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of using documents with intent to defraud under s 229A of the Crimes Act 1961 and three counts alleging that he supplied information to an immigration officer and refugee status officers knowing that it was false or misleading in material respects.
[2]        The former charges have maximum penalties of seven years’ imprisonment. The other three charges, laid under s 142(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1987 were punishable by a maximum term of seven years’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $100,000.
[3]        The appellant is a citizen of Turkey and the holder of a Turkish passport. He is also an Iraqi citizen, having been born in that country. He was granted a visitor’s visa to New Zealand on 4 April 2001 and arrived here on 16 April, with the intention of staying.
[4]        Judge Gittos found that in order to further his intent of entering New Zealand permanently, the appellant had disposed of his legitimate Turkish passport and on entry to New Zealand had passed himself off as a refugee coming from a different destination, giving a different name and identity to the New Zealand immigration authorities. The Judge observed:
He concealed his true name and Turkish travel credentials and persisted in the falsehood of his assumed name and identity and his application to stay here as a refugee. This was the subject of thorough investigation by the authorities, and the charges that he faces have to do with his uttering false documents in support of this cover story as a refugee, which he stubbornly adhered to for a very long time, putting the authorities to a great deal of trouble in the matter of his identification.

[5] On 30 October 2001 and 2 April 2002 the appellant completed applications to work in New Zealand in the name of “Jahad”. In each of those applications he failed to declare that he is known by another name and that he holds Turkish citizenship. Further false work applications were tendered by him on 14 November 2002, 9 May and 21 October 2003, and 27 June 2005. Within the same time period he completed the false claim for refugee status in New Zealand. He was interviewed by a refugee status officer, maintained that he was Raed Jahad and again failed to disclose both his true name and his Turkish nationality.
[6] Charges were laid against the appellant in the Auckland District Court on 29 November 2006. He was committed for trial on 12 July 2007. He pleaded…

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 Sabuncuoglu

Details

AGLC: R v Sabuncuoglu [2008] NZCA 448
Case: [2008] NZCA 448
Decision Date: 30 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Nihat Sabuncuoglu, appealed against his sentence of 24 months imprisonment imposed by Judge Gittos for charges related to immigration fraud and the use of false documents. The appellant, a citizen of Turkey and Iraq, had entered New Zealand under false pretenses and submitted multiple false applications for work and refugee status. The court considered the legal issues raised by the appellant, including the discount for his guilty plea, the impact of his post-traumatic stress disorder, and the consequences of his imprisonment on his family.

The Court of Appeal found that Judge Gittos had appropriately considered the discount for the appellant's guilty plea, which was entered at a late stage. The court held that there was no established sentencing practice that would allow the appellant to delay his guilty plea without forfeiting any reduction in sentence. Regarding the appellant's post-traumatic stress disorder, the Court of Appeal found that there was not a sufficient nexus between his disorder and his offending to warrant a reduction in sentence. Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the consequences of the appellant's imprisonment, which would result in a 10-year bar on re-entry to New Zealand, should not be taken into account in the sentencing process.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by Judge Gittos. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of New Zealand's immigration system and the need for appropriate sentencing principles to be applied in cases of immigration fraud.

Orders