G v Police HC Auckland CRI 2010-055-452
[2010] NZHC 825
•30 April 2010
This case has been anonymized
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI 2010-055-452
G
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Hearing: 30 April 2010
Counsel: I Jayanandan for Applicant
A McClintock for Respondent
Judgment: 30 April 2010
JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J
[1] This is an application for bail following an arrest for breach of existing bail.
[2] Mr G is charged with aggravated robbery of a takeaway store. It is said that he and three others robbed the store with one of the offenders being armed with a knife. A few personal possessions belonging to the person then in charge of shop, together with some of the takeaway product, were stolen.
[3] The robbers left in a vehicle which was subsequently pursued by police. The vehicle crashed and it is alleged that Mr G ran from the vehicle. He was chased
by police and arrested.
G V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI 2010-055-452 30 April 2010
[4] He was admitted to bail. He was subject to a 12 hour curfew from 7.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. There have been three bail breaches. The first two were met with warning. The third led to Mr G ’s detention in custody and has led to the present application.
[5] The matter is in the High Court because subsequent to his remand in custody the case has been through committal.
[6] In an affidavit Mr G explains his bail breaches. The first was because he went to collect his unemployment benefit from an ATM machine and was unable to access it until 8.30 p.m. He needed money to buy food as there was none at the house. The second and third breaches came about because he was at that point living with his brother, Charlie. It is said that his brother suffers from mental disorder including significant mood swings which are difficult to deal with. On both occasions his brother became confrontational, and rather than get into a dispute Mr G left.
[7] Mr G offers an alternative bail address which is in Hokianga with his mother, who is a Maori warden.
[8] Mrs Hemara, who is Mr G ’s mother, has also filed an affidavit. She confirms that Mr G ’s brother suffers from a mental disorder. She indicates that she would have Mr G live with her in Hokianga where he would receive considerable support from both her and the community. She has contacts with the community groups who can provide a good support structure for Mr G if he is bailed to that address.
[9] The Crown emphasises the three breaches within a month. The explanation for the first breach is queried. On the second breach he was rebailed with a warning. At 11.32 p.m. on the third occasion he was found at another house, and with alcohol. It opposes any return to the existing situation, and accepts the new environment might be different. However, it properly refers to the number of quick breaches, and the fact that he is not a young man, so it cannot be excused by youth.
[10] I consider that Mr G should be afforded on opportunity. The curfew breaches have not themselves involved any concerning conduct other than the breach. The opportunity to move from Auckland and be under the eye of his mother may prove beneficial to everyone. Bail is granted on the following terms:
a) he is to travel upon release directly to Kaikohe;
b) he is to reside at 237B Pakanae RD 3, Kaikohe, Hokianga;
c) he is to report twice a week to Kaikohe police;
d) he is to be curfewed from 9.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m.;
e) there is to be no contact with victims or Crown witnesses;
f) attendance at any pre-trial matters is excused unless specifically required by the Court;
g) he is not to leave the Kaikohe district with prior approval of police unless to attend a Court hearing.
[11] Mrs Hemara was present. I explained the conditions to her.
Simon France J
Solicitors:
I Jayanandan, Barrister, 18 Laburnum Road, New Windsor, Auckland 1440
A McClintock, Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Shortland Street, Auckland,
email: alysha[email protected]
0
0
0