C v Police HC Wellington CRI 2008-485-94

[2008] NZHC 1543

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2008-485-94

C

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         30 September 2008

Counsel:         Appellant in Person

M W C Snape for the Crown

Judgment:      2 October 2008

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      Mr C   appeals a conviction for failing to answer police bail.  At the hearing he was acquitted of disorderly behaviour on the basis that the conduct did not meet the required standard, and of possessing a knife in a public place on the basis that he proffered a reasonable excuse for possession.

[2]      By way of background  Mr C    faced  various  charges  arising from different dates.   He was denied bail, and unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus.  The concern Mr C   is perceived to present is whether he will appear

to answer bail.  In June he made a renewed bail application, and this was granted due

C V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2008-485-94 2 October 2008

to the Judge’s very proper concern over the length of the remand given any likely sentence.

[3]      The  present  charge  that  is  the  subject  of  appeal  is  one  of  the  earlier non-appearances   that   ultimately   led   to   a   custodial   remand.      It   relates   to

8 February 2008.   At the hearing of the present charges, Mr C   offered no evidence on this charge, nor cross-examined relevant police witnesses.   He was assisted by an appointed amicus, and as the acquittals show his conduct of the hearing and the conduct on his defence on the other charges was focussed and successful.

[4]      On appeal Mr C   does not deny he failed to answer bail.  Rather he says that he was provoked into not appearing because of all the events that had occurred to him in the preceding months.  These events made it right for him not to report to Court, and he should not have a conviction entered.

[5]      I apprehend it is important to Mr C   that the events he referred to, and which he is apparently pursuing by way of civil action, be recorded so I do so:

a)       Mr C    says  that  since  1999  government  agents  have  been poisoning him with the sap of the euphoria plant;

b)consequent on that, he has sought access to privileged documents that would disclose this conduct and has wrongly been denied them.   In the context of the hearing that led to this appeal he made a renewed application   prior   to   the   hearing.      Mr C     believes   the application he made was removed and replaced with a different application.  When he was unsuccessful in obtaining the documents, he was denied  the opportunity by the District Court Judge to get judicial review;

c)       Mr C    believes  an  informer,  whom  he  names,  has  been involved in causing a series of fabricated charges to be laid against Mr C  .     Mr C  ’s  efforts  to  obtain  the  information

needed to confirm this suspicion have repeatedly and wrongly been denied.

[6]      Appended to the appeal submissions are a series of documents which appear to be police notebook entries, and some applications made by Mr C   to the District Court.

[7]      As I advised Mr C   at the hearing, none of this material undermines the essence of the charge which is that he did not attend Court when required to do so.   It appears that was a deliberate decision.   Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.  I note finally for Mr C  ’s benefit that, however justified it may seem to him, not appearing on bail when required to do so makes it much harder for

Courts to grant bail on any subsequent occasion that might arise.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

B C  , C/- Downtown Community Ministry, PO Box 6133, Wellington

Luke, Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10 357, Wellington, email: [email protected]