B v Police HC Wellington Cri-2010-485-40

[2010] NZHC 648

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-485-40
CRI-2010-485-41
CRI-2010-485-42
CRI-2010-485-43

CRI-2010-485-44

B

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         4 May 2010

Counsel:         R J Stevens for Appellant

MWC Snape for Respondent

Judgment:      4 May 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

[1]      This is an appeal against the refusal of bail.

[2]      The appellant faces a considerable number of charges including:  assault with a weapon;   intentional damage;   disorderly behaviour;   resisting a police officer; assault on a police officer;   intimidation;   conversion of a vehicle;   breach of community work;   cultivation of cannabis;   driving while disqualified;   and trespassing.   In some instances there are more than one count for those particular

offences.

B V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2010-845-40  4 May 2010

[3]      He appeared before Judge Thomas on 7 April  on an application for bail. Section 12(1)(b) of the Bail Act applies so that the onus was on the appellant to show the Judge, on the balance of probabilities, that bail should be granted.   In particular to show that the appellant will not, while on bail, commit any offence involving violence.

[4]      In a comprehensive and careful decision the Judge considered all relevant matters and came to the conclusion that she was not satisfied that the appellant had discharged the onus which was on him pursuant to the Act.  Bail was accordingly refused.

[5]      The notice of appeal  was lodged before  Mr Stevens received instruction. Mr Stevens now appears for the appellant.  He has carefully considered the papers and the Judge’s decision and has, very responsibly, advised the Court that he has formed the view that there is nothing which he could properly advance in support of the appeal.  That is a responsible attitude for counsel to take.  I had, in advance of the hearing, considered the papers and I had myself formed a view, of course tentative at that stage, which was in line with the view which Mr Stevens has formed.   I am satisfied that there is no basis on which the Judge has erred or the exercise of her discretion should be interfered with.

[6]      For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:           Crown Law for Respondent

Fanselows, Wellington for Appellant

“A D MacKenzie J”