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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL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 a term of imprisonment imposed of more than about one year.  Perhaps there would be a slight uplift on that in respect of the previous convictions which the appellant has, but  Mr Mansfield  points  out  that  there  have  been  no  previous  convictions  for violence.  To that extent this offending is outside the pattern of offending for which the appellant has previously been responsible.

[8]      On the other hand, it also seems to be common ground that a period of about

18 months might elapse before these matters could be brought to trial.  Assuming a sentence of one year or slightly more were imposed upon the appellant’s conviction in respect of the current offences, that would mean a remand in custody of about three  times  the  length  of  the  sentence  that  could  be  effectively  served  by  the appellant.  That, of course, is one of the considerations which must be of concern and it is specifically mentioned in s 8(2)(f) of the Bail Act 2000.

[9]      That consideration was not in fact mentioned in the decision under appeal which may be criticised on that  basis, although Mr  Mansfield  this  morning  has chosen to emphasise other considerations than error in the decision under appeal.  He has referred in particular to the ability of the appellant’s parents to provide a caring environment for the appellant, who despite his age and history, has according to Mr Mansfield’s  instructions,  recently  manifested  a  change  of  attitude.    He  has evinced a desire to secure treatment for problems of drug addiction and inquiries have been made at Odyssey House where it appears he will be able to be accommodated  if,   and  when,   a   bed   becomes   available.      In  the   meantime Mr Mansfield advised that arrangements have been made by Mr Coppins’ parents for him to undergo counselling in the Man Alive Programme.

[10]     The Crown’s opposition to  bail has been that there must  be a legitimate concern, because of the appellant’s history, that he would not abide by any order that the Court might make imposing conditions on his bail.  Ms Latimer has referred to offences committed in 2004 and 2000 involving a failure to answer bail.  She then points out that he was on bail in respect of other charges when the current offending

allegedly occurred.   The outstanding charges arising  from that  incident  included burglary, possession of utensils and interfering with motor vehicles.

[11]     Both counsel have also referred to a letter that the appellant wrote to the complainant.  I have not read the letter but its relevant points have been summarised to me by counsel.   Mr Mansfield describes the letter as one which reiterated the appellant’s account of events on the night in question, urged the complainant to obtain treatment for her own drug addition and urged her also to support, by way of affidavit, his account of events on that night.  He pointed out that the letter had been written immediately prior  to  the complainant’s appearance before District  Court Judge Harvey, but that no further letter had been written since Mr Mansfield became involved as counsel.

[12]     Ms Latimer pointed out that the letter was intimidating to the extent that it ended with the appellant indicating that he was going to seek legal help and that she would suffer as a result.  I do not think that too much emphasis can be placed on the letter.  Were bail granted and there were a repetition of any contact by the appellant with the complainant, then she would be in a position to advise the police about that and bail would then certainly be revoked.

[13]     I  agree  with  Ms  Latimer  that  there  are  some  troubling  aspects  of  the appellant’s previous history.  They do not go to whether there is a risk that he would appear when he needed to appear, so much as raising the possible concern that he might offend whilst on bail and he might endeavour to make further contact with the complainant.  As I have said, conduct in the latter category would be effectively self- policing in a situation such as this and would result in an immediate revocation of bail.  Although violence is alleged on this occasion, violence is not part of the pattern of offending that has characterised the appellant’s history to date.

[14]     Having considered everything that counsel have said to me, I am of the view that bail will be appropriately granted in this case.  I am influenced in particular, by the  length  of  time  that  must  necessarily  elapse  before  these  charges  can  be determined and also by the indications that have been given about the appellant

taking steps to improve his condition with respect to the drug addiction which I have previously mentioned.

[15]     In the result, the appeal will be allowed.    Bail is granted subject to these conditions:

a)       The appellant is not to make any contact with the complainant by any means whatsoever.

b)       He is not to go within a five kilometre radius of the complainant’s address in Wallace Road, Papatoetoe.

c)       He is to reside at all times with his parents at 23 Quedley Court, Eastern Beach, Howick.

d)He is to remain at that address between the hours of 9.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. on each day.  He is to present himself forthwith at the door if the police call to inquire as to his presence.

e)       If a position becomes available at Odyssey House and the appellant wishes to reside there, he may do  so after he has given 24 hours written notice to the Officer in Charge, Constable Adam at Section 2, Otahuhu Police Station.