G v Police HC Wellington CRI-2008-485-105

[2008] NZHC 1424

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2008-485-105

G

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         10 September 2008

Appearances: K I Jefferies for Appellant

C Boshier for Police

Judgment:      10 September 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WILD J

[1]      This is an appeal against the refusal of bail by Judge Johnston in the District

Court at Porirua on 15 August.

[2]      I do not intend making this a long decision.  If anyone needs the detail of the appellant, the charges he faces and his criminal record, then they can get it from the Judge’s decision.

[3]      In his submissions in support of this appeal Mr Jefferies recognised the difficulties it faces.  The highest he can, and did, put the appeal is that the Judge did

not give proper consideration to the feasibility of granting bail on conditions that

G V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2008-485-105  10 September 2008

would properly meet the concerns that s 12(5) of the Bail Act required the Judge to address.

[4]      I do not accept that the Judge failed in that respect.  In [6] of her decision she set  out  Mr  Jefferies  submission  to  her  that  the  appellant  could  be  bailed  on conditions  that  dealt  with  the  s  12(5)  concerns.    She  actually detailed  the  bail conditions that Mr Jefferies suggested would do that.   In a thorough and careful decision the Judge expressed herself as not persuaded by the appellant that bail should be granted.  Of course, the appellant had the onus of persuasion: s 12(4) of the Bail Act.

[5]      Within the confines  of  the Bail  Act,  the grant  of  bail  is  a discretionary decision.  An appellant from such a decision needs to persuade this Court that the Judge erred in principle, failed to take account of some relevant consideration, took into account some irrelevant one or made a decision that was plainly wrong.  ‘Plainly wrong’ seems means a decision that was outside the available range of discretionary decision making.

[6]      I am not satisfied that the Judge wrongly exercised her discretion.

[7]      Mr Jefferies has this morning twice submitted to me that trial of this matter may be as far away as a year. What I say to that is that bail can be reconsidered at any time, particularly if there is a change of circumstance.  A suitable opportunity to reconsider bail here would obviously be following any committal at depositions when it will be known what the likely length of time to trial is.

[8]      Another option that Mr Jefferies put to me that I consider is the most hopeful one for the appellant, is electronically monitored bail.  I am not of course able to deal with that today because it is not before me.   It is a matter for the District Court within  whose  criminal  jurisdiction  the  appellant  currently  firmly  is,  upon  the required application.

[9]      The appeal is dismissed.

“J R Wild J”

Solicitors:           Jefferies Raizis, Wellington for Appellant

Crown Solicitor, Wellington