Siddiqui v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 196

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA558/2017
[2019] NZCA 196

BETWEEN	MOHAMED SHAKEEL SIDDIQUI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 May 2019
Court:	Courtney, Lang and Whata JJ
Counsel:	D J Allan for Appellant A J Ewing for Respondent
Judgment:	31 May 2019 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to adjourn the hearing date is declined.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

In 2014 Mr Siddiqui applied from the United States for a position as a psychiatrist at the Waikato District Health Board (DHB). He had tertiary qualifications, including a medical qualification, but was not qualified to practise psychiatry. In support of his application he provided two forged documents: an Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulations certificate and an American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology certificate. These qualifications actually belonged to another man with the same name. Mr Siddiqui also altered a scanned copy of an Indian passport in the name of Mohamed Siddiqui so that it appeared to be his own passport. He provided three written references, all from false email addresses, and an oral reference with the telephone number of his brother.
Mr Siddiqui obtained the position. He was granted temporary registration and a practising licence by the Medical Council of New Zealand using the forged license and certificate. He began work in January 2015. Concerns about his performance led to inquiries about his qualifications. In July 2015 he was charged with 13 counts of dishonesty, including forgery, using forged documents and obtaining by deception.
On the first day of trial, 14 March 2017, Mr Siddiqui pleaded guilty to four charges arising from his use of the forged documents. Prior to sentencing he applied unsuccessfully to vacate his guilty pleas.[1] He was sentenced to four years and three months’ imprisonment, which he served.[2] He was subsequently deported to India. Mr Siddiqui now appeals his convictions on the ground that he was acting under duress in entering the guilty pleas.

Adjournment application

[1]R v Siddiqui [2017] NZDC 19197 [Application to vacate guilty pleas].

[2]R v Siddiqui [2017] NZDC 21063 at [45] [Sentencing notes].

Prior to the hearing of the appeal Mr Siddiqui applied twice, unsuccessfully, for an adjournment of the appeal hearing.[3] That application was renewed on the morning of the hearing and refused. Given the unusual circumstances it is appropriate that we give our reasons for refusing the adjournment.
[3]Siddiqui v R CA558/2017, 5 April 2019 (Minute of Gilbert J) and Siddiqui v R CA558/2017, 18 April 2019 (Minute 2 of Gilbert J).
Mr Siddiqui was sentenced on 18 September 2017 and filed his notice of appeal on 27 September 2017. He had a provisional grant of Legal Aid to assess whether he had an arguable case. However, the appeal was not advanced expeditiously. A year later, in a memorandum dated 25 September 2018, Mr Siddiqui’s counsel, Mr Allan, confirmed that he had interviewed…

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 Siddiqui v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Siddiqui v The Queen [2019] NZCA 196
Case: [2019] NZCA 196
Decision Date: 31 May 2019 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohamed Shakeel Siddiqui appeals his convictions for using forged documents, obtaining by deception, and holding himself out as a health practitioner despite being unqualified. Siddiqui had applied for a job as a psychiatrist in New Zealand, providing forged documents to obtain the position. He began work in January 2015, but concerns about his performance led to inquiries into his qualifications. Siddiqui was charged with 13 counts of dishonesty, and on the first day of trial, he pleaded guilty to four charges. He now appeals on the ground that he was acting under duress in entering the guilty pleas. The court first declined Siddiqui's application for an adjournment of the appeal hearing. Siddiqui had not complied with the timetable set by the court for filing amended grounds of appeal and other materials in support of the appeal. The court found that Siddiqui had been aware that strict compliance with the timetable was expected, and that the only purpose of the affidavit he needed to file was to annex qualifications that he claimed to have obtained, which the Crown accepted that he held. The court found that the appeal had been delayed by Siddiqui, and that there was no basis for adjourning it further. The court then turned to the grounds of appeal. Siddiqui argued that the tight time frame provided to prepare for trial put him under duress, and that he had a tenable defence. The court found that Siddiqui had not demonstrated a tenable defence that he was precluded from advancing by reason of the tight time frame, and that even if he had, the fact that he held some genuine qualifications could not have provided the basis for a tenable defence. The court also found that the tone of a memorandum written by Siddiqui's trial counsel was not prejudicial enough to influence the Judge in his assessment of Siddiqui's credibility. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders