Greer v Police HC Wellington CRI 2010-485-60

[2010] NZHC 1101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2010-485-60

ALAN IVO GREER

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         2 July 2010

Counsel:         Appellant in Person

K Grau for Respondent

Judgment:      2 July 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      Mr Greer has elected trial by jury on a charge of breach of parole.   The specific allegations that gave rise to the charge are that he failed to report to the probation officer within 72 hours of his release from prison in early January 2010. He now appeals against a refusal in the District Court to grant him bail.

[2]      Mr Greer’s bail has something of a history which I think in this decision I

should recount.

[3]      When he first appeared on 21 January 2010 he was refused bail.  He appealed unsuccessfully to this Court.   The appeal failed because given Mr Greer’s attitude

ALAN IVO GREER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2010-485-60  2 July 2010

appropriate bail conditions they were unlikely to be obeyed in the assessment of MacKenzie J.   Thus the likelihood of reoffending was in the Judge’s assessment high.

[4]      On  16 March 2010  the  matter  came  back  before  the  District  Court  and Mr Greer again sought bail.   The District Court Judge could not identify any new grounds justifying reopening consideration of bail and Mr Greer’s remand in custody was continued.

[5]      On 1 April 2010 the matter again came before the District Court.   Another application  for  bail  was  made  and  declined  on  the  basis  of  no  change  in circumstances being shown.  I note on the date Mr Greer was offered an early trial date of 12 April which was rejected by him.

[6]      On 18 May 2010 the Crown decided it could no longer oppose bail and so bail was granted on conditions.  The conditions included compliance with his parole release conditions, reporting to the probation officer and residing with his mother in Tinui in the Wairarapa.

[7]      On 21 May 2010 after a pre-trial hearing it became clear that Mr Greer had not reported to the probation officer as required and his bail was revoked.

[8]      On 28 May 2010 Mr Greer further appeared in the District Court and again sought bail.  Bail was opposed in part because it was said Mr Greer was in breach of one of his conditions of his parole; that he not associate or otherwise have contact with any person under 16 years of age unless under the direct supervision of any informed adult approved by the probation officer.

[9]      The evidence of this breach came from a probation officer who swore an affidavit  that  on  20 May the  officer  had  spoken  to  Mr Greer  at  the  Wellington District Court.  It was said he was then with a woman and a child about three years of age.  When Mr Greer and the woman were told of the condition of this parole he said the woman laughed and she, Mr Greer and the child left.

[10]     The  Judge  refused  bail.     He  noted  the  previous  problems  including Mr Greer’s refusal to obey conditions imposed and the concern he had as to further offending.  The Judge acknowledged the potential lengthy delay before trial but said he had been offered an early trial date and had turned that chance down.

[11]     Before me today Mr Greer has made submissions in support of his appeal.  I have decided that effectively because of a change in circumstances and given the substantial time Mr Greer has already spent in custody that it is proper to allow him bail.  Mr Greer of course given his experience in the justice system will understand that if he refuses to obey bail conditions then the chances of any further bail until his trial now due 11 August 2010 is modest indeed.  The change of condition is that his parole  ends  this  Monday,  5 July.    Thus  from  that  date  he  will  be  free  of  any obligations to the Parole Board and the probation service.

[12]     Mr Greer has indicated today that he objects to the two conditions of bail sought by the Crown.  Those conditions are firstly a resident condition.  He indicates that he proposes to live as he has previously at his mother’s house in Tinui.   The other condition sought by the Crown is that he not have contact with anyone under

16 years of age.  Mr Greer says that neither conditions are necessary to ensure either his attendance nor to prevent further re-offending.

[13]     As I have said I am satisfied that Mr Greer should now have bail but on conditions which I impose.  Mr Greer has indicated that he will obey the conditions of bail if he chooses to sign the bail bond containing those conditions.   I have indicated to him that of course if he refuses to sign the bail bond today then he will not be released on bail and will spend the next period until 11 August (his trial date) in custody.  The choice is now his.

[14]     I assess that reasonable conditions of bail are as follows:

a)       firstly, that he reside at his mother’s house at R D 9, Tinui in the Wairarapa.    Should  the  police  call  to  check  his  presence  at  that address  he is  to  make  himself  available  at  the  front  door  of  that residence to identify that he is present;

b)        secondly,  that  he  is  not  to  have  contact  with  any  female  under

16 years of age, that condition is imposed given Mr Greer’s previous convictions.

[15]     For the reasons given, therefore, the appeal is granted and bail granted on the conditions I have identified.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

K Grau, Luke Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10 357, Wellington, email: [email protected]

A I Greer, R D 9, Tinui, Wairarapa