Man's Appeal Over Knife Conviction Dismissed by High Court

A man from Tauranga has lost his appeal against a conviction and sentence for carrying a hunting knife, following a ruling by the High Court. Mohammad Maghsoudi was initially stopped by police in February 2023 after being pulled over for driving. During the stop, a constable noticed a knife protruding from Maghsoudi's trouser pocket and asked him to place it on the bonnet of his car.

During the encounter, Maghsoudi told the officer that his religion required him to carry a weapon for self-defence and that he needed the knife to cut his pizza. This claim became the central issue during his subsequent trial at the District Court in 2024, where Maghsoudi represented himself with the assistance of a McKenzie friend.

Religious and Practical Justifications Rejected
The trial judge, Judge Clare Bennett, found that Maghsoudi's evidence was inconsistent and lacked supporting evidence. She noted that there was no proof he had purchased or consumed pizza, and that his religious justification did not meet the legal threshold for a 'reasonable excuse' to carry a weapon. The judge pointed out that, unlike in cases such as that of a Sikh carrying a kirpan, Maghsoudi did not clearly articulate a religious exception.

High Court Upholds Trial Judge's Decision
Maghsoudi's appeal to the High Court was recently dismissed. Justice Mathew Downs, who presided over the appeal, agreed with Judge Bennett’s findings. He emphasized that the knife in question was clearly a hunting knife, not a tool for cutting food. Furthermore, he stated that a religious justification based solely on the general notion of self-defence would not be sufficient under the Crimes Act.

Legal and Societal Implications
The case raises important legal and societal questions about the intersection of personal beliefs and public safety. While Maghsoudi's claim of religious necessity was heartfelt, the court ruled that it did not meet the legal criteria for a reasonable excuse. The ruling reinforces the principle that weapons, even if claimed to be for self-defence, must be subject to strict legal scrutiny.

This decision highlights the importance of clear legal justifications for carrying weapons in public spaces and the need for individuals to understand the legal implications of such actions. It also underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with broader public safety concerns.