A v Police HC Wellington CRI-2009-485-144

[2009] NZHC 1462

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2009-485-144

A

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing:         23 October 2009

Counsel:         K I Jefferies for applicant

J A Ongley for respondent

Judgment:      23 October 2009

JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1]      This comes before the Court as an application for bail, the District Court Judge  having  previously  declined  jurisdiction  under   a   misapprehension   that Mr A   had previous convictions in relation to A or B class drugs.  It is common ground that he does not.

[2]      I have treated the matter as if it is a fresh application made to this Court. Mr A     faces   charges   of   possession   for   supply   of   the   class   A   drug methamphetamine pursuant to ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act

1975, and 27 charges of offering to supply methamphetamine.  He is a 41 year old

man whose occupation is listed as a gib stopper, but Mr Jefferies understands that he

A V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2009-485-144  23 October 2009

was not regularly employed at the time of his apprehension, and rather was in receipt of some form of benefit.

[3]      Mr A    proposes  that  he  be  bailed  to  an  address  in  Featherston,  and recognises the appropriateness of a daily reporting clause, a curfew, and a ban on travel outside the Wairarapa.

[4]      The Police oppose bail on grounds of their concern at the prospects of his continuing to offend whilst on bail, that the proposed bail address is unsuitable and that he has previously demonstrated an inability to comply with Court orders.

[5]      Mr Jefferies projected the steps needed prior to a trial in the Wellington District Court and estimates that that trial might be as long away as 12 months. Ms Ongley was inclined to suggest that, given priority in the allocation of a trial, the time to trial may be more likely six months.  I have a real concern that, if the period on remand is in a range between eight to 12 months, then that is unduly long, relative to the strength of the Police grounds for opposition to bail.

[6]      On the risk of continued offending, Ms Ongley is justified in making the points that Mr A   is an acknowledged user of methamphetamine, that in such circumstances the temptation to continue dealing in order to sustain his own habit is almost irresistible, and that unless his activities are carefully confined, that will continue.

[7]      In  addition,  the  Police  are  concerned  at  the  unsuitable  activities  of  the principal occupant of the proposed address.  On that, Mr Jefferies has produced an affidavit from that person who denies having any convictions, and describes living at the property with her father and young children.  The presence of young children at the address is another reason why the Police find it unsuitable.

[8]      Given the reduction in risk of continued offending that can be achieved by the imposition of conditions, and the likely period down to trial, I consider that the factors  under  s 8  of  the  Bail  Act  2000  weigh  in  favour  of  bail  on  appropriate conditions.    As  Mr Jefferies  acknowledges,  Mr A    will  know  that  his  bail

conditions will be closely monitored and if there is any breach at all, it is a liberty that will most likely be withdrawn.

[9]      I accordingly grant bail on the conditions that Mr A   is:

a)       To reside at 3 Tait Crescent, Featherston, subject to a daily curfew from 8pm to 7am.

b)        To report daily to the Featherston Police Station between 1pm and

6pm.  I impose that condition assuming that it is readily workable for the Police.  If it transpires that that is not able to be readily monitored at the Featherston Police Station, then I grant leave for the matter to be referred back to the Court for a substitute reporting clause which would most likely be to the Police Station in Masterton.

c)       Not to travel outside the Wairarapa with the exception of his being entitled to travel to Wellington but only for the purposes of meeting counsel, such meetings to be pre-arranged, and on the days of further Court appearances.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Jefferies & Raizis, Wellington for applicant
Crown Solicitor, Wellington for respondent