G v Police HC Dunedin CRI 2007 045 959

[2007] NZHC 1300

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI 2007 045 959

CRI 2009 476 021

G

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         22 November 2007 (Heard at Christchurch)

Appearances: T W Fournier for Appellant

D Jackson for Crown

Judgment:      22 November 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      G   is charged with driving with excess breath alcohol.  At this stage she has not entered a plea.  She has previous convictions for drink driving and also convictions for refusing to accompany and refusing to supply blood.   Clearly she has a major drink problem.

[2]      Initially she was bailed by police and remained on bail for 12 days until she came before the Court.  When she came before the Court on 14 November 2007 the

Judge noted the previous record and her alcohol level on this latest occasion.   He

G V POLICE HC DUN CRI 2007 045 959 22 November 2007

reached the view that there was a real and significant risk that the appellant would continue to offend and remanded her in custody until 28 November 2007.

[3]      As a result of Mr Fournier’s submissions and other information which I will mention in a moment, it is apparent that I am much better placed to consider the matter than was the District Court Judge.

[4]      One of the additional pieces of information I have comes from Mr Patrick Fitzgerald, who is the appellant’s uncle.  Whether a letter from Mr Fitzgerald was before the District Court, I do not know because it was not mentioned.  In any event, the letter provides useful background and a strong indication that there is family support for the appellant.

[5]      Equally importantly Mr Fitzgerald, who is in Court today, indicated that he has taken back the car that was previously used by the appellant.  She has no car at this stage.  It also emerged that he would be prepared to have the appellant live at his address in Ashburton until she appears on 28 November.   This proposal from my inquiry about the supervision that would be available to Ms G   if she was released on bail.  It seems to be clear that she is facing up to her problems.  Indeed, a report from a social worker indicates that just prior to the offending Ms G   had approached her and sought her help because she felt that her recovery was slipping and she needed support.

[6]      Since the offending the social worker has been in almost daily contact with Ms G   and she does not have any reason to suspect that Ms G   has been under the influence of alcohol at any time since the events.   It is reported by the social worker that Ms G   is extremely remorseful and aware of the seriousness and the implications of her offence.

[7]      Apart from these factors it is significant that the appellant was on bail for 12 days.  Whether or not this factor was brought to the Judge’s attention is not entirely clear.  But it again supports the view that the appeal should succeed.

[8]      With the benefit of the additional information that I have, I do not see how I have any option other than to conclude that there is no just cause for continued detention.  The only possible ground for continued detention is that there is a real and significant risk in terms of s8(1) that the appellant might offend while on bail. Given the factors that have been brought to my attention, I think the risks of that are minimal.

[9]      Accordingly the appeal will be allowed.  The appellant will be released on bail on the following conditions:

(a)       She is  bailed  to  her  uncle’s  address  of  Flat  2,  23  Philips  Street, Ashburton.

(b)Until  her  next  appearance  before  the  District  Court  she  is  to  be accompanied by her uncle at that address.

(c)       She is not to consume any alcohol during the period of the remand.

Nor is she to drive any motor vehicles.

(d)       She is to observe a curfew between 9pm and 7am.

Mr Jackson suggested there should be a daily report to the police, essentially to ensure  that  the  appellant  stays  away  from  alcohol.     Having  considered  that suggestion, I am not prepared to adopt it.

Solicitors:         T W Fournier, Christchurch

Crown Solicitor, Timaru