The Queen v Nobakht - [2007] NZCA 488

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA417/06
[2007] NZCA 488
THE QUEEN
v
GHOLAMREZA NOBAKHT
Hearing:17 October 2007

Court:Chambers, Randerson and Williams JJ
Counsel:S Jefferson for Appellant

H D M Lawry for Crown

Judgment:6 November 2007 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
Table of Contents
Para No
A large importation of methamphetamine  [1]
Issues on the appeal  [10]
Defence counsel’s errors  [17]
The questioning of Damien Ieriko  [19]
           The questioning of Detective Rodney Honan  [24]
           The questioning of Sarah Grime  [39]
           Not telling Mr Nobakht about his election
  whether or not to give evidence  [47]
           Introducing the fact Mr Nobakht was a refugee  [56]
           Introducing evidence of “large sums of cash”  [63]
           Pre-trial preparation  [70]
           Conclusion  [73]
Prosecutorial conduct  [74]
           Cross-examination about Mr Nobakht’s trips to Auckland  [77]
           Questions concerning who would be defence witnesses  [82]
           Cross-examination about Mr Nobakht’s return to Iran  [103]
           Sarcasm and ridicule  [117]
           Referring to the drug importation as being “ethnic-based”                   [123]
Trial judge errors  [128]
The effect of what happened at sentencing  [135]
Overall evaluation and conclusion  [153]

A large importation of methamphetamine
[1]       When Warren Hadfield and Gholamreza Nobakht arrived at Auckland International Airport on 8 February 2005 on a flight from Japan, Customs were waiting for them. The two men were, ostensibly, not travelling together. Two customs officers were detailed to search Mr Hadfield: they found, strapped to his back and in his underwear, two bags of methamphetamine, totalling 800 grams. Another customs officer, unbeknown to Mr Nobakht, conducted a search of Mr Nobakht’s suitcase prior to its being placed on the baggage carousel. He found nothing. Mr Nobakht was accordingly allowed to pass through Customs unaware that he was under suspicion.
[2]       Mr Hadfield, after the drugs were found, agreed to assist the authorities by making a controlled delivery. All of this took a little time to arrange.
[3]       After Mr Nobakht had passed through Customs, he went out into the arrival area, where he met a friend, Hamid Sahati. They went to the McDonald’s restaurant for a meal. All this time they were under police observation. The police suspected Messrs Nobakht and Sahati were both involved in the Hadfield importation; their hope was that, when Mr Hadfield emerged into the arrivals area, he would be met by the other two men and a controlled delivery would then or subsequently take place. Although Messrs Nobakht and Sahati waited around, somewhat suspiciously, for over an hour, they had left the airport by the time Mr Hadfield emerged.
[4]       Mr Hadfield then rang, as he had been instructed to do, a Mr Mansoud in Japan. Mr Mansoud gave him a telephone number to ring for his “New Zealand contact”. Mr Hadfield rang that number and was told to go to the Crown Plaza Hotel in Auckland. When it was discovered that hotel was full, Mr Hadfield was told to go to the Sky City Hotel. Once there, he…

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 The Queen v Nobakht

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Nobakht [2007] NZCA 488
Case: [2007] NZCA 488
Decision Date: 6 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gholamreza Nobakht was convicted of importing methamphetamine and conspiring to supply methamphetamine. He appealed his conviction on a number of grounds, including alleged errors by his trial counsel, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and alleged errors by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that none of the alleged errors were of sufficient gravity to constitute a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the Crown case against Nobakht was strong and his account of events at trial was implausible. The Court also found that Nobakht's admission of guilt at sentencing, which resulted in a reduction in sentence, was a factor to be taken into account in evaluating whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred, but it did not "sink" the appeal. The Court concluded that Nobakht had received a fair trial and dismissed the appeal.

Orders