Bomb hoax conviction appeal fails
A former Aviation Security worker who planted a hoax bomb at an airport has failed in his latest appeal after he was jailed.
Preetam Prakash Maid, 32, was found guilty in the Dunedin District Court of taking an imitation explosive into a security-enhanced area after a device was found on the north side of Dunedin Airport on March 17, 2019 – two days after the Christchurch terror attack.
He was sen- tenced in January last year to three years’ jail, which was reduced to 17 months on appeal.
Maid’s lawyer also took his conviction to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and there had been a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal was ultimately unsuccessful and Maid’s conviction stood.
On Friday, an application for the judgment dismissing the appeal against conviction to be recalled was also dismissed.
‘‘Mr Maid’s application would appear to be based on that he argues there is a ‘very special reason’ why justice requires recall. We do not agree,’’ the judgment said.
The judgment said a recall was not the appropriate context to challenge factual findings in the earlier judgment or to represent arguments already given previously in a new form.
Maid’s actions in planting the fake bomb represented a gross breach of trust at a time when the country was ‘‘reeling and in mourning’’ after the terror attack, Judge Michael Crosbie said at Maid’s sentencing in January. ‘‘You did this in a covert way.’’ The Crown alleged that Maid had accessed a dangerous-goods storeroom at the airport, obtaining a number of items including
wire, a battery pack, a mobile phone, a butane cannister, a small gas cylinder and green bubble wrap. He assembled those items into an improvised imitation explosive device. Maid also wrote a cryptic note saying: ‘‘A Alpha; B Birds; C Crash; D Dunedin; E Emergency; F Fools.’’
A black laptop satchel containing the improvised imitation device was later ‘‘discovered’’ near a small hut by Maid, as he did rounds around the airport’s perimeter.
He not only raised the alarm with the airport, which prompted a large response, but also contacted several media outlets.
In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown’s case that Maid had assembled the device and deposited it at the hut in the laptop bag.
Although the case relied on circumstantial evidence that included the swipe card movements of Maid as well as a handwriting expert concluding that he had written the cryptic note, the Court of Appeal found the charge had been proved.