B v Police HC Auckland Cri-2009-404-332

[2009] NZHC 2051

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-404-000332

B

v

NZ POLICE

Hearing:         3 November 2009

Appearances: L B   (in person) C Ryan for Crown

Judgment:      4 November 2009 at 9:00 am

JUDGMENT OF WHITE J [Appeal against bail conditions]

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 November 2009 at 9:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………….

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, PO Box 2213, Auckland 1140

Copy to:

L W B  , 66 Gulf View Road, Murrays Bay

B V NZ POLICE HC AK CRI-2009-404-000332  4 November 2009

[1]      This  is  an  appeal  by  Mr  B    against  bail  conditions  imposed  by

Judge P A Cunningham in the District Court at Auckland on 13 July 2009.

[2]      It was apparent from Mr B  ’s notices of appeal and oral submissions in support that he has a number of concerns about the proceedings in which he is involved and that not all of the concerns related to this appeal.

[3]      Mr B   indicated that the specific bail conditions which he sought to have changed were:

[1]      The permanent residence condition referred to in paragraph [10] of the District Court Judge’s decision;

[2]      An apparent requirement to report to the probation service every two weeks which is not in fact referred to in the District Court Judge’s decision;  and

[3]       A condition not to associate with the persons named in paragraph [11]

of the decision.

[4]      Mr B   sought a variation to the personal residence condition to enable him  to  conduct  his  business  within  New Zealand  which  he  explained  involved contact with hotels and motels in other centres.  He did not, however, provide the Court with any evidence in relation to this business.

[5]      As far as the probation service reporting condition was required, he submitted that it was no longer necessary.

[6]      He submitted strongly that the condition not to associate with the persons named in paragraph [11] was the wrong way round and that they should be required not to associate with him.

[7]      Ms Ryan for the Crown opposed any change in the bail conditions.   She referred to the outstanding cases before the District Court mentioned in paragraphs [13] to [16] of the District Court Judge’s decision.  She also produced a copy of Mr B  ’s criminal record which shows that two cases involving convictions in the District Court on serious offences for which terms of imprisonment were imposed are under appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[8]      Ms Ryan helpfully said that, if requested by Mr B  , she would take steps to clarify the following matters:

[4]       The accuracy of his criminal record which he disputed;

[5]       Whether the probation service reporting condition was still required;

and

[6]       Any possible breach of the name suppression order which was also made by the District Court Judge in her decision.

[9]      In the absence of any evidence to support the variations to the bail conditions sought by Mr B   and in the light, it would appear, of the need to clarify the matters referred by Ms Ryan, it was not possible to proceed further with the appeal today.

[10]     It was suggested to Mr B   that he might consider whether to make a further application to the District Court for variation of his bail conditions under s 34 of the Bail Act 2000, supported by evidence on the relevant matters.

[11]     On this basis the appeal today was formally dismissed.

D J White J