Kebab store attackers lose bid for Supreme Court appeal

File photo / NZ Herald

Two of the five men jailed following a brutal hit on an Auckland kebab store owner have had leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed.

Augustus Ah-Chong was found guilty on counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, and aggravated robbery, after he and another man ambushed Bryce Johnson as he was closing up All Go Kebabs in Glenfield about 10pm on August 28, 2008.

Kunal Nand Reddy was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm because he knew about a plot to put Mr Johnson in hospital but failed to report it to the authorities.

A female employee who wanted to take over the business paid a hitman $3000 to hurt Mr Johnson so she could make her move while he recovered.

At the time a detective described the assault as "horrific" and among the worst he had seen. It left almost no bones intact in the victim's face. Surgeons spent 16 hours on reconstruction and Mr Johnson needed ongoing treatment for brain injury. He suffered reduced vision in one eye and loss of taste and smell.

The trauma of the attack led to his marriage breaking down and he moved to Australia.

For his part in the beating, Ah-Chong was sentenced to seven years and six months behind bars.

He went to the Court of Appeal and was partially successful - the conviction for aggravated robbery was quashed but other aspects of the appeal were dismissed.

Reddy lost his bid to the Court of Appeal against conviction but his appeal against sentence was allowed. The eight-month jail term was reduced to two months, allowing him immediate release.

Both men applied to the Supreme Court. Ah-Chong was concerned about the directions given by the judge to the jury at trial on the liability of parties to a joint enterprise. He also wanted a chance to appeal the way in which the verdicts were delivered.

Reddy also raised issues concerning delivery of the verdict and the judge's summing up. In addition he alleged failure of trial counsel to adduce good character evidence and contended that the Court of Appeal misread the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act.

In its judgment released today, the Supreme Court dismissed both applications, saying: "We are not persuaded that it is in the interests of justice for leave to appeal to be given in either case."