B v Police HC Nelson CRI-2007-442-01

[2007] NZHC 17

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2007-442-01

B

Appellant

v

THE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         7 February 2007

(Heard at Christchurch)

Appearances: J. Eaton for Appellant

K. Beaton for Respondent

Judgment:      7 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE JOHN HANSEN

[1]      The appellant faces a large number of fraud charges in the Nelson District Court arising from the failure of a business known as Vision Aluminium Limited. The failure of that business goes back some time, and in the meantime it appears that Mr B    has co-operated with the Police.

[2]      Because of delays Mr B    went to Australia and set up a new life.  But his then lawyer continued to remain in touch with the Police.  Ultimately, however, a warrant to arrest was issued and he was taken into custody by the Federal Police.  On

legal  advice,  he  unsuccessfully  resisted  extradition.     His  lawyer  in  Australia

B  V THE POLICE HC NEL CRI-2007-442-01  7 February 2007

suggested he should appeal, but he took the pragmatic approach that he should return and face these matters and not appeal the extradition decision.

[3]      Mr B    had been  granted bail  in  Australia on  a surety in  the sum  of A$50,000, from a Mr Alan Jones.  The Crown have indicated that provided a similar surety is paid in New Zealand they do not object to the allowing of this appeal as it relates to the conditions of residence and the surrender of the passport.

[4]      Mr Eaton has advised that because of changing business circumstances the surety currently available  in  terms  of  liquid  cash  assets  is  the  sum  of  $40,000

Australian.  It seems to me that when one makes allowance for currency differences there is not a great deal between A$40,000 and NZ50,000.  It also seems to me that a person  who  is  not  going to  answer  their  bail  and  leave  the  surety  to  face  the inevitable outcome, the difference between NZ$44,000 approximately and NZ$50,000 will not be significant.

[5]      Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the conditions relating to residence and reporting to the New Zealand Police and the surrender of passport are deleted.  Bail will be granted and the passport returned on condition that the sum of A$40,000  by  way  of  surety  is  paid  to  the  Registrar  of  the  High  Court  in Christchurch.  On the payment of that sum the passport may be returned.  The Registrar is directed to lodge that sum in an interest bearing account.

[6]      There will be a further condition that Mr B    is to report weekly to the Surfers Paradise, Queensland Police Station between 8am and 8pm on the Monday of each week.

[7]      For the sake completeness, there will be liberty to both parties to apply further.

Solicitors

Rhodes & Co., Christchurch for Appellant

(Counsel J. Easton)

Crown Law, Christchurch for Respondent