R v Slaimankhel - [2015] NZHC 2140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-006353 [2015] NZHC 2140

THE QUEEN

v

KHALID NASER SLAIMANKHEL

Hearing: 3 September 2015

Appearances:

C P Paterson for Crown
M W Ryan for Slaimankhel

Sentence:

3 September 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
M W Ryan, Auckland

R v SLAIMANKHEL [2015] NZHC 2140 [3 September 2015]

[1] Mr Slaimankhel you have been found guilty of one count of kidnapping and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and you are here today to be sentenced.

[2] The maximum sentence on the kidnapping offending is 14 years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the attempting to pervert the course of justice offending is seven years’ imprisonment.

[3] My sentence will be in five parts:

(a) First, I will set out an overview of the facts of your offending; (b) Second, I will talk about your personal circumstances;
(c) Third, I will summarise the submissions made by the Crown and on your behalf;

(d)Fourth, I will set out my assessment of sentence for you. I will include in this part my view of the material facts specific to you.

(e) Fifth, I will hand down your sentence.

Overview of Facts

[4] In February 2013, Mr Slaimankhel you were on bail with a condition that you not consume or possess controlled substances unless prescribed by a medical practitioner. On 1 February 2013 you were observed with the victim of the kidnapping, Mr Yacoub, in the Sylvia Park car park. You were seen retrieving a bag from the boot of Mr Yacoub’s car and placing it in your own car. Later that day you were stopped by the police and a search of your vehicle revealed a white plastic bag containing 1,084 mint green tablets. You were arrested for being in breach of bail and remanded in custody until 4 February 2013 and then you were released pending a defended bail hearing.

[5] On 4 February 2013 a search warrant was executed at Mr Yacoub’s home address and a small quantity of identical green tablets was located in a shoe box containing other anabolic steroids. Mr Yacoub gave an interview to the police stating that you had arranged for the green pills to be delivered to his house, and for him to hand over to you once they arrived.

[6] When you had heard that Mr Yacoub had been interviewed by the police, you became suspicious that Mr Yacoub had narked on you. You decided that it was necessary to have Mr Yacoub provide an affidavit on your behalf for the purposes of your bail hearing. You then arranged with Mr Paea to have him detain Mr Yacoub and bring him to your lawyer’s office. In furtherance of this objective, you arranged for a mutual friend, Mr Law, to set up a meeting with Mr Yacoub at the Burger King, Mangere. When Mr Yacoub arrived at the Burger King he was met by Mr…

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 Slaimankhel

Details

AGLC: R v Slaimankhel [2015] NZHC 2140
Case: [2015] NZHC 2140
Decision Date: 3 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slaimankhel involved the sentencing of Khalid Naser Slaimankhel for kidnapping and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, considering various factors including the nature of the offence, the level of planning and premeditation, the emotional harm caused to the victim, and the mitigating factors presented by the defendant.

The court began by outlining the purposes and principles of sentencing as per the Sentencing Act 2002. It emphasised the need to denounce the offending, hold the defendant accountable, promote a sense of responsibility, and consider deterrence and the protection of the public. The court also noted the importance of considering the totality of the offending and the gravity of the crime.

After assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the kidnapping was the lead offence and set a starting point of three years. The court acknowledged the high level of planning, the purpose of perverting the course of justice, and the significant emotional harm caused to the victim. However, it did not consider the threats of violence or the length of detention as particularly aggravating factors.

The court also took into account the defendant's genuine remorse, offer of reparation, and good family support. While the defendant's prior convictions and delayed acceptance of culpability were noted, the court was encouraged by his capacity to rehabilitate. Considering all factors, the court applied a discount of 15% to the starting point, resulting in a final sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The court also imposed a warning under the three strikes law, advising the defendant of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. This included serving the sentence without parole or early release, or life imprisonment for murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust.

Orders