Legal Research
Cases
Sharifi v The King

Sharifi v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 672 22 March 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-669-670

[2024] NZHC 672

BETWEEN
SAJJAD AHMAD SHARIFI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 March 2024

Counsel:

P K Hamlin and B Mugisho for Appellant D Becker for Respondent

Judgment:

22 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 March 2024 at 4.00 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
P Hamlin, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

SHARIFI v R [2024] NZHC 672 [22 March 2024]

This appeal

[1] Mr Sajjad Ahmad Sharifi, or Mr Sharifi, appeals against his sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge BA Gibson in the Auckland District Court on 19 December 2023.1

[2] Mr Sharifi was sentenced in respect of eight charges arising out of five separate incidents that spanned the latter half of 2021. He pleaded guilty to all charges. The breadth of his offending is summarised, chronologically, as follows:

(a)On 17 June 2021, Mr Sharifi supplied one gram of methamphetamine to an undercover police officer.2

(b)In August 2021, Mr Sharifi crashed his vehicle on Mt Albert Road, Auckland, into a set of traffic lights. Three charges resulted:

(i)procuring cannabis;3

(ii)careless driving;4 and

(iii)driving with blood containing evidence of the use of a controlled drug.5

(c)In October 2021, Mr Sharifi admitted to the police he had attached a stolen number plate to his vehicle in order to do a “drive off” from a petrol station. He was charged with obtaining a document for pecuniary advantage.6

1      R v Sharifi [2023] NZDC 28860.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 379(1); maximum penalty $3,000 fine, and the Court may order disqualification for a period that it sees fit.
5      Land Transport Act, s 58(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine, and a mandatory disqualification from driving for six months or more.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

(d)In November 2021, after an ongoing dispute with the victim, Mr Sharifi used an airgun to shoot the victim causing one pellet to penetrate the victim’s arm where, as I understand it, still remains. Mr Sharifi was charged with discharging an airgun with reckless disregard for the safety of others.7

(e)Finally, in November 2021, following the airgun incident, police executed a search warrant at an apartment being rented by Mr Sharifi’s on Waterloo Quadrant. Two charged resulted:

(i)possessing methamphetamine; and8

(ii)possessing a pipe.9

[3] Mr Sharifi submits that Judge Gibson erred in six ways, each of which, separately and together, produced a sentence that was manifestly excessive:

(a)in applying an excessive two-year uplift in respect of the remaining charges (after correctly setting a three-year starting point for the lead charge of discharging the airgun) and thereby breaching the totality principle;

(b)in erroneously…

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 Sharifi v The King

Details

AGLC: Sharifi v The King [2024] NZHC 672
Case: [2024] NZHC 672
Decision Date: 22 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sharifi v The King, the High Court reviewed the sentence imposed by the Auckland District Court on Mr Sajjad Ahmad Sharifi, who had pleaded guilty to eight charges arising out of five separate incidents that occurred in 2021. The charges included supplying methamphetamine, careless driving, procuring cannabis, driving with blood containing evidence of the use of a controlled drug, obtaining a document for pecuniary advantage, and discharging an airgun with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The District Court Judge imposed a starting point of three years’ imprisonment for the lead offence of discharging the airgun with reckless disregard and an uplift of two years for the remaining charges, resulting in a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Mr Sharifi appealed against the sentence, arguing that the Judge erred in six ways, including applying an excessive uplift for the remaining charges and not considering the pre-sentence report. The High Court found that the Judge erred in applying a three-month uplift for offending on bail and in not giving a discount for background factors raised in the s 27 report. The Court concluded that the total starting point should have been four years’ imprisonment, and the allowances for statutory factors in the Sentencing Act should have been no less than 40 per cent. The proper end sentence is two years one month’s imprisonment, which is still appropriate in light of the seriousness of the lead offence and the need for a clear deterrent message.

Orders