Chief Executive, Department of Corrections v Martin

[2016] NZHC 947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-000285 [2016] NZHC 947

BETWEEN

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Applicant

AND

JAMES TIMI MARTIN Respondent

Hearing:	10 May 2016
Appearances:	D Dufty for Applicant A Prasad and J Grainger for Respondent
Judgment:	10 May 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

[1]      The  Department  of  Corrections  has  made  application  for  an  extended supervision order in respect of Mr Martin.

[2]      Mr Martin is currently subject to an interim supervision order which was made by Davison J on 29 February 2016.  There are various special conditions on that order.

[3]      Inter alia it requires that Mr Martin not approach or enter the city boundaries of Rotorua without the prior written consent of a probation officer and then only on such conditions as may be stipulated.

[4]      Mr Martin has advised through his counsel that the probation officer is taking the view that that condition precludes Mr Martin from driving.

[5]      Mr Martin is currently employed as a driver.   It is clear that that condition does not preclude Mr Martin from driving.  Mr Martin is free to drive.   It simply

precludes him from approaching or entering the city boundaries of Rotorua without

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MARTIN [2016] NZHC 947 [10 May 2016]

the consent of a probation officer.  I record this to make it clear beyond peradventure and for the benefit of the Probation Service.

[6]      Condition (i) requires that Mr Martin is not to possess or consume alcohol, take illicit drugs, or enter into any licensed premises.

[7]      Mr Martin, through his counsel, takes the point that licensed premises include restaurants, cafes and many theatres.  Mr Martin objects to the imposition of that part of the condition.  He has no difficulty with the requirement that he is not to possess or consume alcohol or take illicit drugs.  Mr Dufty, for the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, does not oppose the words “or enter into any licensed premises” being deleted from the special condition attaching to the interim supervision order.  I make an order accordingly.

[8]      I record that the interim supervision order is to remain in place until my reserved  judgment  on  the  Department’s  application  for  an  extended  supervision order is released.  It will then either be replaced by any extended supervision order I

make or it will lapse because no extended supervision order is being made.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Public Defence Service, Auckland

Wylie J