B v Police HC Auckland CRI 2009-404-271

[2009] NZHC 1256

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2009-404-271

B

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing:         15 September 2009

Counsel:         J Kovacevich for Accused

J Kincade for Crown

Judgment:      15 September 2009

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Bail Application)

[1]      B   is charged with:

a)        supplying methamphetamine;

b)        possession of methamphetamine for supply;

c)        possession of precursors; and d)           possession of utensils.

B V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI 2009-404-271  15 September 2009

[2]      The applicant’s drug dealing is said to have been identified through a large number of interceptions of cell-phone communications and conversations between October 2008 and June 2009.   The summary of facts suggests hundreds of such occasions.

[3]      As a result at the termination of the interceptions a search of the premises at which Ms B   lived revealed methamphetamine, cannabis and other drug dealing paraphernalia.

[4]      Ms B   has drug dealing convictions in 2002 for methamphetamine, 2004 for methamphetamine, for cannabis in 2004 and a conviction for cultivating cannabis in 1996.  She breached the community work she was given in 2008 and 2009 and has other historic failures to obey court orders.

[5]      She now applies for bail.   It is in this Court because of her previous drug dealing convictions.  At the time of the alleged offending it seems she was on bail as well for possession of methamphetamine and possession of cannabis.

[6]      In support of the application for bail counsel submits:

a)        firstly, she can be trusted to abide bail terms;

b)secondly, there has been no failure of appearance in Court to answer bail since 1997;

c)       thirdly, there has never been any allegation of her interfering with witnesses; and

d)finally, it is said most importantly, she has two daughters, one fifteen, one just seventeen who is eight months pregnant and who needs the support of her mother at that time.

[7]      I am not prepared to grant bail to Ms B  .  Firstly, on the face of it the case against her is extremely strong.   Secondly, she has a history of serious drug offending.  If convicted a very lengthy sentence will inevitably follow providing a

significant incentive now to her for flight.  Thirdly, the risk of offending on bail is high  given  the  serious  regular  drug  offending  that  she  has  been  convicted  of. Fourthly, the applicant has something of a history of failing to obey court orders.

[8]      In making this decision I am mindful of the position of her daughter and the support of course she needs from her mother at this time.  However, as I have said to counsel, Ms B   no doubt made choices about her involvement in using, and as alleged, dealing in drugs.  Her daughter would, if bail was granted, be placed in the position where in my assessment there would be a high probability of re-offending by Ms B  .

[9]      Given Ms B   has been involved previously and alleged this time with methamphetamine I imagine that Ms B   junior would not wish to expose her baby to this.  I accept that this is a difficult decision for Ms B   junior to accept but in my view there are no proper grounds for me to grant bail.

[10]     Bail is therefore refused.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

J Kovacevich, Barrister, PO Box 5316, Wellesley Street, Auckland, email:  [email protected]

J Kincade, Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Shortland Street, Auckland email:  julie-ann[email protected]