Coppins v Police HC Auckland CRI 2007-404-228 - [2007] NZHC 2057

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-404-000228

UNDER the Bail Act 2000

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against refusal to grant bail

BETWEEN GREGORY RODNEY COPPINS Appellant

AND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 August 2007

Appearances: R M Mansfield for Applicant
K E Latimer for Respondent

Judgment: 28 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J ON BAIL APPLICATION

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, PO Box 2213, Upper Shortland Street, Auckland.
Copy to:
RM Mansfield, PO Box 2674, Shortland Street, Auckland

COPPINS V POLICE HC AK CRI 2007-404-000228 28 August 2007

[1] Gregory Rodney Coppins, appeals against a decision of District Court Judge Harvey in the Manukau District Court on 18 July 2007 declining him bail. He faces charges of burglary, male assaults female, and speaking threateningly to the complainant.

[2] Judge Harvey noted that the offences arose within the context of a failed domestic relationship. According to the summary of facts, at about 12.30 p.m. on 8
July 2007 the defendant made three threatening phone calls to the complainant. During those phone calls he is alleged to have repeatedly threatened the victim saying that he was going to come to her address, pummel her face and rape her. There was then an incident in which the respondent went to the victim’s address where she was residing with the eight month old child of the appellant and the complainant.

[3] It is alleged that, fearing for her safety the victim closed and locked all the windows and doors of the house. The appellant demanded that she let him in and he walked around the house trying to gain entry. He managed to do so eventually by shaking a ranch-slider door and opening it. Then it is said that he punched the victim once with a closed fist to the forehead. A struggle ensued during which it is said that the appellant slapped the complainant twice across the face. This was followed a short while later by two further slaps across her face.

[4] As a result of the attack the complainant received a sore head and bruising, but she did not require medical attention.

[5] The appellant has a different account of the events of that night and he intends to defend the charges. He denies, in particular, that there were any threats of rape. On his account of events, he went to the address to uplift some sunglasses and she refused to allow him to do so. There was an argument about whether the sunglasses were his or hers.

[6] These factual disputes will, of course, have to be inquired into at the trial and at the moment Mr Coppins is entitled to have his application for bail considered on the basis of the presumption of innocence.

[7] It is accepted, however, that even if the account given in the summary of facts were accepted by the ultimate triers of facts, it is unlikely that there would be…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Coppins v Police HC Auckland CRI 2007-404-228

Details

AGLC: Coppins v Police HC Auckland CRI 2007-404-228 [2007] NZHC 2057
Case: [2007] NZHC 2057
Decision Date: 28 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gregory Rodney Coppins appeals against a decision of the District Court declining him bail. He faces charges of burglary, male assaults female, and speaking threateningly to the complainant, which arose from a failed domestic relationship. The court had to decide whether bail should be granted to Coppins, considering his history of offending and the nature of the current charges. The appeal judge found that although there were troubling aspects of Coppins' previous history, they did not necessarily indicate a risk of reoffending while on bail. The judge also considered the length of time that must elapse before the charges could be determined and the indications that Coppins was taking steps to improve his condition with respect to drug addiction. The appeal was allowed, and bail was granted subject to specific conditions, including that Coppins is not to make any contact with the complainant by any means whatsoever, not to go within a five kilometre radius of the complainant's address, to reside with his parents at all times, to remain at that address between the hours of 9.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. on each day, and to give 24 hours written notice to the Officer in Charge if he wishes to reside at Odyssey House.

Orders