Department of Corrections v Darrell

[2013] NZHC 3373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-012-3168 [2013] NZHC 3373

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v

JAMIE NEIL DARRELL

Hearing:                   13 December 2013

Counsel:                  K B Bell for the Applicant

K Gray for the Respondent

Judgment:                13 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]      In July 2013, I sentenced Jamie Darrell to supervision on certain conditions and also imposed 240 hours community work.  As Ms Gray put it, his response to that sentence was woeful, it seems clearly enough on account of his taking a drug, a legal high, which in due course induced a psychotic disorder.  In any event, none of the obligations entailed in the sentence were met.  Instead on 30 October Mr Darrell was admitted to Waikari Hospital.   He remained there until 7 November when he was discharged.  At that point he travelled to Christchurch, spent a night or two with his parents, and then a period of two weeks or more in a respite care facility.

[2]      On 25 November he made a voluntary appearance in this Court, no doubt in response to an application to review and cancel his sentence in light of the non- performance of the  conditions.   At that voluntary appearance on 25  November, MacKenzie J was concerned that a simple release on bail into his parents’ custody

was not a safe solution.   He considered a 24 hour curfew would be needed and

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v DARRELL [2013] NZHC 3373 [13 December 2013]

ultimately resolved to remand Mr Darrell in custody.  He spent 18 days in custody and the application for review is now before me.

[3]      There is no contest that the review must be granted and that there is a need for Mr Darrell to be re-sentenced, but it is not possible to do so at the moment.  The first issue that arises is Mr Darrell’s status from today and over the holiday period until February 2014.

[4]      Fortunately from Mr Darrell’s perspective, the Crown represented by Ms Bell accepts that a release on bail is now appropriate, subject to there being suitable conditions.     I  adopted  the  expedient  of  giving  counsel  time  to  confer  with Mr Darrell’s parents about what conditions they consider would be most workable. Three conditions have been suggested:

(a)       that Mr Darrell is subject to a residential condition, that he reside at

Flat 3, 129 Fisher Avenue, Christchurch,

(b)      that he be subject to a curfew between 9.00 pm and 6.00 am daily, and

(c)       that he abstain from consumption of both drugs and alcohol, save for prescribed medication throughout the remand period.

I am satisfied that these are appropriate conditions, and Mr Darrell is released on bail on such conditions.

[5]      The second issue is a remand to a suitable date for the review application to be considered and in all probability for Mr Darrell to be re-sentenced.  I call for the preparation of two reports.  Firstly, a pre-sentence report including a home detention appendix.  The report itself need not cover additional matters other than to the extent that the report writer considers that may be beneficial in light of the history of this case.

[6]      Secondly, I call for a s 38(2)(a) report on Mr Darrell’s up to date mental state, again that report need not be extensive, so long as it provides sufficient information

to assess the likely efficacy of sentencing options given Mr Darrell’s mental state in

February 2014.

[7]      Mr Darrell, you are remanded to 13 February 2014 at midday, at which time the review application and in all probability the re-sentencing will proceed and be determined.  You will have to sign a bail bond shortly, and need I say it, breach of those conditions and you are going to have big problems.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly and Co., Christchurch

Public Defence Office, Christchurch