F v Police HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-241

[2010] NZHC 1229

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-404-241

F

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         20 July 2010

Appearances: B Ravelich for the Appellant

R M A McCoubrey for the Respondent

Judgment:      20 July 2010

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 July 2010

At 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:      Crown Solicitors, PO Box 2213, Auckland 1140

Counsel:       B D Ravelich, PO Box 121-464, Waitakere 0650

F V POLICE HC AK CRI-2010-404-241  20 July 2010

[1]      Mr F   faces various methamphetamine related charges, the most serious of which is manufacturing, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2]      Mr F  ’s previous convictions for drug offences are such that by virtue of the operation of ss 12(1)(b)(iii) and 12(d) of the Bail Act 2000 he bears the onus of satisfying the Court (on the balance of probabilities) that bail should be granted.

[3]      The Police caption summary outlines the alleged involvement of Mr F   in the offences with which he has been charged.  Essentially it seems that the police went to an address in Te Atatu looking for a Ms Love who was thought to be living at the address and for whom there was at that time an outstanding arrest warrant.  At the   address   they  found   Mr   F  ’s   co-accused   Mr   Clark,   Mr   Senk   and Ms Rapihana  and  a  clandestine  methamphetamine  laboratory  operating  in  the downstairs garage.  A quantity of precursor materials and substances were found in the garage and in the boot of a car parked in the driveway.

[4]      Mr F   is said to have “decamped the address” upon police arrival but was subsequently arrested.  He has declined to make any statement to the police and denies involvement in the manufacturing operation, although he accepts he was at the address at some point in time.

[5]      The police also say that they have found three of Mr F  ’s fingerprints on items later seized from the laboratory.  ESR results are not yet available.

[6]      Mr Ravelich seeks bail for Mr F   to his father’s address at 1 Tapu Street, Kumeu.   He has said Mr F   is willing to submit to a 24 hour curfew and to electronically monitored bail if necessary.  The address has been vetted and is agreed to be feasible in electronic bail terms.

[7]      It is currently estimated that it will be some time before Mr F  ’s trial; it seems unlikely it will take place until next year.  That said, if he is convicted of the present charges against him, any sentence he receives is likely to be substantial.

[8]      The  Police’s  principal  ground  for  opposing  bail  is  that  Mr  F    has previously committed other, similar, drug offences while on bail and that even with strict electronic bail he may well do so again.  Mr F   has also failed to answer bail on one occasion.  Some concern was also expressed as to the suitability of the proposed bail address due to the admission by Mr F  ’s father that he would be unable to discern whether Mr F   was under the influence of drugs.  While that is in no way a poor reflection on Mr F   (senior) it is undoubtedly relevant here.

[9]      While  I  accept  that  the  evidence  so  far  against  Mr  F    is  not overwhelming,   neither   can   it   be   discounted,   even   taking   into   account   the presumption of innocence.   Manufacturing of methamphetamine is undoubtedly a serious offence, and it is an offence for which Mr F   has a previous conviction. Manufacturing and related drug offences are often committed in private dwellings, as indeed is alleged to have been the case here.  Confining Mr F   to his father’s house will not preclude such offending from occurring.

[10]     After taking all the above matters into account Mr Ravelich has not satisfied me that bail should be granted.  In particular I do not consider that even a 24 hour curfew and EM bail will adequately address the risk of Mr F   reoffending.   I also take into account the matters relevant to s 8 to which I have referred above.

[11]     Bail is denied accordingly and Mr F   is remanded in custody until his next court appearance which the Crown advised is 20 August 2010.   If there is a material change of circumstances (and I am thinking here in particular of any significant delay in progressing the trial) a fresh application for bail can of course be

made.

Rebecca Ellis J