F v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2007 409 015

[2007] NZHC 1588

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2007 409 015

CRI 2007 409 016

F

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         8 February 2007

Counsel:         G Trainor for Appellant

B Hawes for Respondent

Judgment:      8 February 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RANDERSON J

Solicitors:           Trainor MacLean, PO Box 189, Christchurch

Raymond Donnelly & Co, PO Box 533, Christchurch

F V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2007 409 015  8 February 2007

Introduction

[1]      This is an appeal against refusal of bail in the District Court on 29 January

2007 by Judge Green.   At this stage the notes made by the Judge on the appeal application are in draft form only but counsel are prepared to proceed on that basis.

Background

[2]      There is rather scant information on the file but the appellant is charged with possession of a class B drug for supply.  The summary of facts indicates that he was found at a particular address and was carrying a large zip up wallet in which was located 10 tabs of Ritalin and 40 tabs of Rubefin, having a combined street value of about $900.

[3]      According to present counsel, Mr Trainor, (who did not represent Mr F   at the time he came before the District Court Judge), the High Court granted bail to the appellant by consent on 28 May 2006.   There were two conditions.   The first (later revoked by consent) was a reporting clause and the second was a requirement that the appellant reside at a particular address. In his remarks in declining the bail application, Judge Green referred to the appellant having been warned by the Police on 30 May 2006 for reporting late.   However, that reporting requirement has, as indicated, now been revoked.

[4]      The appellant came before the Court on 29 January on a charge of theft of a minor amount of property from New World.  Judge Green remarked that he was not residing  at  the  address  specified  for  the  bail  previously  granted.     However Mr Trainor informed this Court that the appellant had no intention of avoiding the police and had in fact advised them of his new address.  He was apparently in the process of changing his address.

Present Position

[5]      The police do not oppose the grant of bail and, indeed, I am informed the police did not oppose bail in the District Court either.  Mr Hawes has informed the Court that the appellant is considered to be reliable in relation to bail, having never failed to attend court when required.   Although he has a number of previous convictions, he does not have any previous convictions for non-compliance with bail.

[6]      He is currently remanded in custody to appear in the District Court at a call- over on Tuesday next week 13 February and although his trial has only a provisional date for that week, Mr Hawes informs the Court that it is likely his trial will proceed next week.

[7]      Mr Hawes submits that it would be appropriate to allow the appellant to be released on bail subject to a condition that he reside at [address], Christchurch.  There is little point in adding a reporting clause at this stage given the imminence of his trial but if his trial does not proceed next week as proposed, then it may be that the conditions of bail will need to be reviewed at the call-over in the District Court.

Result

[8]      Accordingly, I grant the appeal against refusal of bail.  Bail is granted on the condition that the appellant reside at [address], Christchurch and presents himself to police should the police attend at that address and require him to

do so.

A P Randerson, J Chief High Court Judge