Clarke v Ministry of Social Development

[2014] NZHC 1829

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2014-485-54 [2014] NZHC 1829

NEIL MARTIN CLARKE Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	5 August 2014
Counsel:	Appellant in Person E M Light for Respondent
Judgment:	5 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      Mr Clarke is charged with using a phone to make a bomb threat and two charges  of  assault  on  police  constables.     When  he  appeared  in  Court  on

30 April 2014 the District Court Judge remanded him on bail requiring him to live at his residence and as a condition of bail not to contact the emergency services unless he had a genuine emergency.

[2]      Mr Clarke filed a notice of appeal.  Essentially, the notice of appeal says that the condition of bail relating to the emergency services is difficult to obey because of its uncertain reach.

[3]      I  agree  the  condition  of  bail  imposed  is  uncertain  as  to  its  meaning. Presumably the emergency services are the Fire Service, the Ambulance and the Police.   The bail condition would prevent Mr Clarke from calling these services

other than in emergencies.  Obviously citizens will have occasions when they need to

CLARKE v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 1829 [5 August 2014]

call the emergency services but there is no emergency.  The Judge could not have intended to prevent Mr Clarke from contacting the emergency services where he had a genuine enquiry but which was not an emergency.

[4]      The  bail  condition  is,  therefore,  quashed.    No  alternative  phrasing  was suggested by the police which was functional.  Given a malicious phone call can be an offence (Telecommunications Act 2001, s 112(2)(a)) no substitute bail condition

is required.

Solicitors:

Luke Cunningham & Clere, Crown Solicitors, Wellington

Ronald Young J