A v Police HC Auckland CRI 2006-404-398

[2006] NZHC 1392

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2006-404-398

A

Appellant

v

THE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         10 November 2006

Appearances: I F West for appellant

M Wharepouri for respondent

Judgment:      10 November 2006

JUDGMENT OF ALLAN J

Solicitors:

I F West, PO Box 76049, Manukau City
Crown Solicitor Auckland

A V THE POLICE HC AK CRI 2006-404-398  10 November 2006

[1]      Mr A  , the appellant, faces charges in the District Court arising from a search of a property in South Auckland, conducted pursuant to the provisions of s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.   He was one of a number of persons on the property at the time of the search.  He appeared in the Manukau District Court on 2

November 2006 having been held in custody overnight.  His application for bail was granted, but on stringent conditions.

[2]      This appeal is against two of those conditions, namely the imposition of a 24 hour curfew, and the direction that the appellant was not to consume alcohol.

[3]      Mr A   has no previous convictions.  The allegation against him relates to the alleged operation of a tinnie house.   There is nothing to connect the alleged offending with a need to impose a 24 hour curfew, or indeed any curfew at all.  The need  for  a  curfew  to  be  related  to  the  factual  nexus  arising  from  the  alleged offending is emphasised in the recent Court of Appeal decision R v Fatu CA454/05

15 December 2005.  I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed to the extent of amending the conditions by deleting the condition requiring a curfew.

[4]      However, in substitution I direct  that Mr A   report to the Manurewa police station each Monday and Friday between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm.

[5]      Ms West also submits that there was no justification for a condition requiring the appellant to refrain from consuming alcohol.   I am satisfied that submission is soundly based.   There is no suggestion that alcohol was involved in this alleged offending, and the appellant has no previous convictions.   I therefore delete the condition requiring the appellant to refrain from consuming alcohol.

[6]      In all other respects the conditions imposed by the District Court Judge are to stand.

C J Allan J