F v Police HC Rotorua Cri-2010-463-25

[2010] NZHC 536

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2010-463-000025

CRI-2010-463-000026

BETWEEN  F

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         30 April 2010

Appearances: T V Barclay for the appellant

S Simmers for the respondent

Judgment:      30 April 2010

ORAL BAIL JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:

T V Barclay, P O Box 383, Rotorua 3040. Fax: [phone]. Email: [email protected]

S Simmers, Crown Solicitors, P O Box 740, Rotorua 3040. Fax: [phone]. Email: [email protected]

F V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2010-463-000025  30 April 2010

[1]      The appellant, F  , was facing three burglary charges laid in the Rotorua District Court relating to deliberate and undoubtedly distressing burglaries of holiday homes in Spencer Road Tarawera committed in November 2009.   Mr Barclay tells me that guilty pleas have been entered to those charges and he is to be sentenced on 24 May.   What the likely sentence will be is uncertain although an appendix has been prepared.

[2]      Unfortunately, whilst on bail for these burglary charges, the appellant has allegedly offended again by being a party to a robbery of a young man at 1.30 am on

15 April.   The allegedly robbed items were a baseball cap and a cigarette lighter. The appellant’s alleged co-offender was one Mr Mihaere, whom I note was also a co-burglar in the November 2009 offending.

[3]      The appellant, had he been obeying his bail conditions, would not have been involved in this robbery because his bail conditions included a condition not to associate with Mr Mihaere.

[4]      There was a brief appearance before Judge Kerr on 15 April.   The Judge declined bail on the grounds that there had been a breach of the non-association clause; committing a further offence while on bail, and an understandable lack of confidence that if bail was granted he would obey the condition.

[5]      The appellant was remanded to 4 May.  On that date Mr Barclay informs me there will be a status hearing on the robbery charge.

[6]      Given the appellant’s record and the allegations against him I have some unease about releasing him into the community.   However, as Mr Simmers in his helpful written submissions points out, the appellant is still under 20 (he is currently aged 19), so he has the benefit of the s 20 presumption.

[7]      The Crown is not prepared to oppose bail if fairly stringent conditions are imposed.

[8]      I  thus  allow  the  appeal  and  release  the  appellant  on  bail  subject  to  the following conditions:

a)        He is to reside at 256 B Old Taupo Road.

b)He is to observe a 7 pm to 7 am curfew and present himself to the door at any police check.

c)       He is not to consume any alcohol, or illicit, or non-prescribed drugs, or solvents, or to enter licensed premises and is to submit himself to breath screening procedures if required.

d)       He is not to associate with the co-defendant Lynyrd Mihaere.

e)       He is to have no contact, direct or indirect, with the complainant Shawn Williams and the two stipulated witnesses, N Teao and Jason Henry.

[9]      In the event of there being any breach whatever, no matter how minor, of these  bail  conditions,  given  the  appellant’s  record  my expectation  would  be  he should be incarcerated.

.......................................… Priestley J