Failed asylum seeker sentenced for rape, 26 years after deportation ordered
A failed asylum seeker first issued a deportation order in 1999 has today been sentenced to eight years in prison for sex crimes.
Amir Mohebbi was found guilty in February of five charges, including rape, unlawful sexual connection and threatening to kill.
He appeared in the Auckland District Court today where the woman he assaulted read a victim impact statement about the effect the offences, committed in June 2021, have had on her life.
"The trauma you caused had such a profoundly severe impact that I felt no way out. I wanted to take my own life. You made my everyday a living hell. It felt like I was the one in jail.
"I've been unwell with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder post the event."
ADVERTISEMENT
'You did not ruin me' - read more of Sarah's message to Mohebbi here.
Mohebbi stood in the dock with his hand covering his face throughout proceedings.
She said to him, "I hope you feel as small and terrified as you have made me feel. Now you're the helpless one. Guilty of the crime I'm sure you were confident that you would get away with."
"You messed with the wrong woman."
She was attacked by Mohebbi in an apartment building in central Auckland after going to a bar with a group of friends.
He threatened her with death if she reported the crime but after several days, she decided to tell her family and notify police. DNA testing eventually led them to Mohebbi, who was on parole for meth charges at the time of the offending.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, spoke to 1News ahead of today's sentencing saying: "I don't want people to live in a country where this sort of thing is allowed."
ADVERTISEMENT
In court today, Judge Kirsten Lummis accused Mohebbi of taking the opportunity "to play out a sexual fantasy".
"[The victim] has no memory as to how she ended up in your bedroom, only you know what the truth of the matter is," she said.
She told Mohebbi the woman was "simply in no position to consent due to her level of intoxication" and that this would have been obvious, yet he "took complete advantage of the situation".
Three-decade battle to deport Mohebbi
Mohebbi first arrived in New Zealand from Iran in 1997 with no documentation, seeking refugee status following his conversion to Christianity.
His claim for asylum was declined by Immigration New Zealand the following year, with an appeal also dismissed.
He was issued with a deportation notice in 1999. However, in September of that year, he was granted a temporary work visa after marrying a local woman.
ADVERTISEMENT
In 2000, he was convicted of making a false oath when arriving in New Zealand and of bigamy, as his previous marriage in Iran had not been legally dissolved.
When his work visa expired in 2001, a further visa application was declined, due to his second wife withdrawing her sponsorship. That led to Mohebbi being classified as an "overstayer".
In 2003, now with a new partner and a child, he was served a further removal order and taken into custody.
INZ was unable to deport him, as he refused to produce his passport or to apply for a new one from Iran. New Zealand at this time did not have an agreement with Iran for the return of people without documentation.
Amir Mohebbi, filmed in 2007 after he was released from Mt Eden Prison.. (Source: 1News)
After four years in Mount Eden prison, and another failed attempt at asylum, he was ordered to be released by the High Court on humanitarian grounds. Upon his release, he was given a limited purpose visa and work permit, which eventually led to permanent residency.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal said his troubles "could and should've ended there".
ADVERTISEMENT
Importing meth
Amir Mohebbi suffered a severe back injury whilst at work, which his defence lawyer, Dale Dufty, said led to him abusing drugs.
In 2010, he was caught importing methamphetamine into New Zealand. Mohebbi was not charged at this time, and it was only eight years later, when he imported the drug again, that he was convicted.
He was sentenced to 10 years and 5 months in jail. Despite the serious conviction, the Parole Board recommended his release in 2020.
Mohebbi was then served his latest deportation notice in July, 2021, which he has continued to appeal.
His case is described by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) as "complex", and marked by repeated legal battles, deportation attempts and serious criminal convictions.
Its National Manager for Compliance, Fadia Mudafar said Mohebbi has "resisted all attempts to deport him from in New Zealand, including by refusing to cooperate with immigration authorities or secure a travel document".
ADVERTISEMENT
"He appealed against his liability for deportation to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT), which initially upheld his deportation", said Mudafar.
"Mohebbi then appealed the IPT's decision to the High Court, which referred the matter back to the IPT for reconsideration."
That process is still ongoing.
Lawful right to appeal
Immigration lawyer Simon Laurent said while Mohebbi's drawn-out case may frustrate many, he is currently exercising his lawful right to appeal against deportation.
"Those legal rights of avenues of redress, established through legislation, they're available to everybody. He's using them like everybody else, including remedies through the senior courts", he said.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) will look at three factors when considering Mohebbi's deportation.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The first is whether he has exceptional humanitarian circumstances, the second is the question of whether it should be unjust or unduly harsh for him to be deported because of his infirmity and convictions. While the third ground is whether it would be not contrary to the public interest to allow him to remain", said Laurent.
Mohebbi is scheduled to appear in front of the IPT at the beginning of July.
"In that context, the IPT can consider the current offending, current conviction, and the sentence that he's received", Laurent added.
"At that point I would say that he has a challenge to succeed at the deportation hearing that's coming up."
Laurent noted that the upcoming appearance could represent the end of the road. "Here he is, possibly near the end of the avenues that he can explore".
An IPT hearing date had initially been scheduled for earlier this year, but was postponed until after his sentencing for sex crimes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Australian sailor with genital herpes removes condom during sex
A Sydney to Hobart sailor and Australian adviser to Finland failed to tell his sexual partner he had genital herpes before taking his condom off midway through sex because he 'couldn't feel anything', a court has heard. Anssi Paatero, 39, is awaiting sentencing in the NSW District Court after pleading
1News
a day ago
- 1News
Mushroom trial: Motive and murder - what the jury must decide
With all evidence now complete, closing arguments are underway in one of the most high-profile murder trials in Australia. But jurors in Victoria aren't being asked to find a motive. They're being asked to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Experts agree the legal threshold is one of the most misunderstood elements of criminal trials - so what does that actually mean? Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin explains. What's the job of the jury? To weigh the evidence presented and decide whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt Under Victorian law, jurors must not speculate, assume or 'fill in gaps' - they rely only on what was presented in court What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually mean? ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to 1News, Criminal barrister Rishi Nathwani KC explained it like this: 'It doesn't mean beyond any doubt at all - just beyond a reasonable one. If the jury finds there is a real possibility the accused is innocent, they must acquit.' Nathwani said while the phrase remains in use in Victoria, in other jurisdictions it's sometimes simplified as: 'Are you sure?' If jurors are not sure, based on the evidence presented in court, then the verdict must be not guilty. Why is this important in the Patterson case? The Crown has alleged Erin Patterson deliberately served a meal containing death cap mushrooms that killed three of her relatives and left a fourth man fighting for life. But prosecutors have explicitly told jurors not to focus on motive. 'You don't need to find a motive to find someone guilty of murder,' the prosecution has said. Instead, they argue that Patterson's behaviour - including her shifting explanations, deleted data and acquisition of a food dehydrator point to intent. ADVERTISEMENT Defence: Beware the danger of hindsight In closing arguments, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy SC warned the jury not to judge her through the lens of hindsight. 'This trial isn't about what might have happened. It's about what the evidence shows.' He said much of the Crown's argument is based on 'speculation' and assumptions that don't amount to proof. So what is the jury considering? Under Victorian law, jurors must decide whether Erin Patterson: Intended to kill or cause serious injury to her lunch guests And whether the prosecution has proven this beyond reasonable doubt ADVERTISEMENT That's it. Even without a clear motive, even with odd behaviour - Nathwani said if there's a reasonable explanation that fits the evidence, Patterson must be acquitted. What has the prosecution said? Over the course of the trial, the Crown argued: Patterson lied about where the mushrooms came from She deliberately misled health officials and police Her phone was factory reset to hide evidence She visited areas where wild death caps were known to grow The prosecution also suggested the sixth beef Wellington - prepared for her estranged husband - was kept separate and potentially safe, though he did not attend the lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers and Erin Patterson. Montage by Crystal Choi. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT What has the defence said? The defence has said: Patterson panicked and lied, but that doesn't mean she's guilty She had no motive to harm her family Scientific and forensic evidence is inconclusive Death cap residue in the dehydrator does not prove intent or timing They also say surviving guest Ian Wilkinson - who testified the accused used different coloured plates - was 'honestly mistaken'. They raised the possibility a third, unknown mushroom species may have been present in the leftovers, citing expert testimony from a virologist. What happens if the jury can't agree? In Victoria, murder charges require a unanimous verdict. Justice Beale will try to avoid a hung jury by directing the jury to continue deliberating and try to reach agreement. But it is possible it could result in a mistrial if all options have been "exhausted". ADVERTISEMENT As Nathwani explained: 'The judge would, if [the jury] made it aware they were struggling to reach a unanimous verdict, direct them... There's a direction he can give of law, which says, you know, you've got to listen to each other... But if they can't, then it's a retrial, and they do it all again in many months' time.' Recap: What's happened so far in the trial? Week 1–2: Opening arguments and early witnesses, including police and hospital staff. Week 3: Toxicology and forensic experts testified on the symptoms of death cap poisoning. Week 4: Phone and tech evidence, including the factory reset, was presented. Week 5: Botanical and mushroom experts, including Dr Tom May, confirmed death cap DNA in cooking equipment. Week 6: Testimony from Patterson's children and others about her behaviour. ADVERTISEMENT Week 7: Erin Patterson testified across eight days. She denied intent and maintained it was a tragic accident. Week 8: Closing arguments. Prosecution accused her of inventing key parts of her story. Defence said speculation and hindsight are not proof. What next? Judge Christopher Beale is expected to give final directions to the jury next week. Deliberations could begin by the end of June.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Charges Laid Over Deaths In New Zealand Hostel Fire
New Zealand Police announced on June 5 that three people had been charged with manslaughter over a May 2023 boarding house fire in Wellington that killed five people. A fourth person has also subsequently been charged. The charges were laid after a two-year investigation into whether the condition of the 52-year-old, four-storey Loafers Lodge and its fire safety systems 'contributed to the fatal outcome.' Detective Sergeant Timothy Leitch said the people charged were 'involved with the management and operation of the building, and police allege they were responsible for aspects of the building's fire safety system.' Two men aged 75 and 58, and a 70-year-old woman, appeared in the Wellington District Court facing five charges of manslaughter, one for each victim. They are alleged to have failed to take reasonable precautions and care to avoid danger to life. They face an alternative set of manslaughter charges alleging failure to comply with duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The fourth person charged, a 72-year-old man, also entered no plea when he appeared in court on June 9. The charges are the first of their kind in New Zealand, it being the first time that police have charged anyone involved in maintaining a building with manslaughter. The courts suppressed the names of all four and remanded them on bail until their appearance in the High Court on June 19. Shortly after the 2023 fire, a 50-year-old man who lived at the boarding house was accused of deliberately lighting it. He pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to face trial in August, charged with five counts of murder and two of arson. His lawyer has indicated a defence of insanity will be lodged. The five residents who died in the blaze which gutted the building were: Michael Wahrlich, 67, a street performer known around town as Mike the Juggler, Melvin Parun, 68, Kenneth Barnard, 67, Peter O'Sullivan, 64, and Liam Hockings, 50. More than 90 people, many of them long-term residents, were staying at the boarding house when the fire broke out on the third floor at 12:25 a.m. on May 16. About 50 survivors were forced to take refuge at an evacuation centre in Newtown Park. Many lost everything in the fire. The 92-room lodge was a death trap. It had no sprinkler system, which firefighters said would have saved lives, and only one functional exit. Fire alarms were reportedly faulty, with some residents saying they only went off in part of the building, and others saying there were so many false alarms that people had learned to ignore them. The fire spread rapidly, making it impossible for many to reach the stairwell to escape. Resident Simon Hanify told the World Socialist Web Site that the front door had been 'sealed shut for about a month; someone kicked it in.' A notice said: 'Door broken, use side entrance.' Some people who could not reach the stairwell to the side entrance were forced to jump onto the roof of an adjacent building. Others were rescued from the rooftop by a fire truck ladder. Some residents were, he said, 'mentally ill or medicated, or infirm, or old, and they wouldn't have stood a chance.' Others spoke of the rooms infested with bed bugs and the lifts frequently not working. Hanify was charged $280 a week for the room, including power, while some were charged as much as $320. 'Do the maths for 92 rooms—and they can't even put a sprinkler system in or replace the roof,' Hanify said. Loafers Lodge is a microcosm of the social crisis affecting ever wider layers of the New Zealand working class. It was home to low-paid shift workers, including meat processing workers, hospital staff, as well as unemployed and elderly people unable to find affordable housing elsewhere. Many were among the city's poorest and lived there for lack of any better options. Murray Edridge, from the Wellington City Mission charity, told the Guardian: 'A significant proportion of residents of the lodge are under our care. This is an absolute disaster. These are people who are inherently vulnerable anyway.' Survivor Alan Potter told the Post following the charges: 'That's the news I wanted to hear.' The 78-year-old has long called for an inquiry into the deadly fire, beyond just charging a man with lighting it. 'I believe it's an institutional failure,' he said. Liam Hockings' family released a statement saying: 'This tragedy has highlighted serious concerns about the safety and conditions of some accommodation, particularly for vulnerable people in our communities who are often housed in buildings like this… 'Everyone deserves a safe place to live—regardless of their circumstances—and we urge all those who own, operate, or manage buildings to take their responsibilities seriously. Lives literally depend on it.' The family was still coming to terms with Liam's death. 'He would have turned 53 just a few days ago,' they said. While the building's managers are now facing legal consequences, the entire ruling elite, including the previous Labour-led government, bears responsibility for creating both the legal framework and social conditions that allowed it. Following the fire, Labour's then Housing Minister Megan Wood declared that Loafers Lodge had passed an inspection by the Wellington City Council and 'met the requirements of the Building Act.' While some countries require sprinklers in buildings of four storeys and above, in New Zealand they are required only for buildings more than 10 storeys high. The fire was a product of the assault on the living standards of the working class, particularly the basic right to decent housing. Loafers Lodge was one of hundreds of boarding houses that are essentially dumping grounds for thousands of people who cannot afford soaring private rents and are unable to access limited public housing. In the five years preceding the fire, including during the Ardern-led Labour government from 2017, Wellington's median rent went up by 33 percent, pushing more people into precarious housing. The waiting list for state housing more than quadrupled from 5,353 in June 2017 to 24,080 in March 2023. More than 100,000 people were estimated to be homeless or in severely substandard housing—about 2 percent of the population. The situation continues to worsen under the current far-right National Party-NZ First-ACT coalition government, which took office in 2023. Figures released in March showed that the number of people sleeping rough had risen 53 percent in Auckland and 40 percent in Wellington. Housing First Auckland manager Rami Alrudani told Radio NZ last month that his organisation was seeing 'more and more homelessness every day.' Last year, the government imposed stricter rules making it more difficult for people to access emergency housing. Among the government's many anti-working-class policies, there has been a massive tax cut for landlords, including many MPs who are property investors, estimated to have cost $NZ2.9 billion. The government falsely claimed this would lead to more affordable rents. According to Infometrics, average rent has risen by 2.7 percent in the past year, in line with inflation, to $575 per week and $592 in metropolitan areas. The government is meanwhile moving to water down health and safety regulations. The regulator WorkSafe will be 'reformed' to reduce the 'burden' on businesses and 'rebalance' its focus away from enforcement and towards 'advice.' More than a hundred jobs have been cut at the agency. This sets the stage for similar tragedies to the Wellington fire, not only in slum boarding houses but more broadly. By John Braddock, Socialist Equality Group 12 June 2025
