Pair arrested in human cargo case lose media gagging bid

A man and a woman arrested as part of a police operation against an alleged organised crime syndicate trading in human cargo lost a legal bid yesterday to gag the media from reporting the case.

Sarwar Rahimi, unemployed of Auckland, and Lida Rahimi, also of Auckland, sought an interim injunction preventing the media from reporting information relating to them before their trial.

They were arrested on Monday and face fraud charges, but it is understood they are yet to appear in court to enter a plea. They are due to appear in the Waitakere District Court on Monday.

In the High Court at Auckland yesterday lawyers for the Herald, Television New Zealand, the Dominion and the Press argued successfully against the injunction application.

They argued that there was no evidence the media intended to publish anything about the pair and that if the Rahimis felt they were victims of contempt of court they had not complained through the proper channel - the Solicitor-General.

Justice Nicholson, who referred to the case as involving an international scheme to have people illegally enter Australia and New Zealand, ruled that the application was too broad. "I find it very difficult to make such orders as they amount to almost a total gag on the media of a very wide-ranging nature for matters which on the face of it seem to be of considerable public interest and concern."

The Rahimis were arrested by police probing an organised crime syndicate they believe traded in human cargo. The ring was said to have been busted when 40 police raided 20 homes and businesses across Auckland on Monday morning. Three arrests were made.

Police said the group, known as the Sawar Syndicate, smuggled more than 1000 people into New Zealand and Australia in the past five years by selling them fake or stolen passports and documents for up to $30,000.

Detectives are still hunting 20 other people they believe are members of the Auckland-based ring.

When the lawyer for the Rahimis, Rob Weir, amended the court application, Justice Nicholson declined it, saying it appeared to be "no more than a facile assumption" on the part of the plaintiffs that their case would be prejudiced.

He was not satisfied that reporting on the case would affect a fair trial, which was likely to be "a considerable way away."

For the Herald, Campbell Clark said the newspaper had not identified the Rahimis or published anything constituting contempt of court. Articles had referred to "expressions of belief as opposed to statements of fact" from the police. The articles made it clear that investigations were continuing.

Justice Nicholson said the Rahimis would have to pay the costs of the three lawyers opposing the injunction. He awarded the lawyers $1000 each.