Greer v The Queen

[2015] NZCA 1

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA620/2014
[2015] NZCA 1

BETWEEN	ALAN IVO GREER Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in Person F Sinclair for Respondent
Judgment:	16 January 2015 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF WHITE J

The application for bail is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicant, Alan Ivo Greer, was convicted after a jury trial in the High Court at Wellington in May 2014 on one count of sexual violation by rape, three counts of threatening to kill, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of possession of an offensive weapon, two representative counts of supplying methamphetamine and one representative count of supplying cannabis to a person under 18 years of age.

2. Mr Greer was sentenced on 26 September 2014:[1]

   (a)on the charge of sexual violation by rape, to preventive detention, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years;

   (b)on each of the charges of aggravated burglary, to seven years imprisonment;

   (c)on each of the charges of threatening to kill, to three years imprisonment;

   (d)on each of the charges of supplying methamphetamine, to three years imprisonment;

   (e)on the charge of supplying cannabis, to three months imprisonment; and

   (f)on the charge of possession of an offensive weapon, to three months imprisonment.

All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

[1]R v Greer [2014] NZHC 2364 at [27].

1. Mr Greer has appealed to this Court against his convictions and sentences and has also applied for bail pending the hearing of his appeal under s 55 of the Bail Act 2000.

2. Bail is opposed by the Crown.

3. I have personally considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.[2]

Relevant principles

[2]See now s 333(2)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

1. The test to be applied in relation to the application is that set out in s 14 of the Bail Act.  Under s 14(1), bail is not to be granted unless the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so.  Section 14(2) provides that the onus is on the applicant to show cause why bail should be granted.

2. Section 14(3) sets out a number of considerations that may be taken into account when determining what is in the interests of justice.  In this case Mr Greer seeks bail on grounds other than those referred to in s 14(3).

Discussion

1. It is not necessary or appropriate to undertake an extensive analysis of the merits of an appeal in determining an application for bail.[3]

   [3]R v de Bruin [2007] NZCA 76 at [9] citing Ellis v R [1998] 3 NZLR 555 (CA).

2. Mr Greer has filed extensive submissions in support of his application for bail, together with 164 pages of attachments.  It appears from this material that he seeks bail on the grounds that:

   (a)While in prison in the past, his communications have been “intercepted”, apparently by the police with the cooperation of the Department of Corrections.

   (b)He is experiencing difficulty accessing a computer and conducting research for his appeal to this Court.

   (c)His legal adviser was recently turned away on the basis of “contrived excuses” by prison authorities.

3. Mr Greer has been granted interim legal aid and Mr Paul Paino has been assigned to provide advice on the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Greer.  Mr Paino has no instructions in respect of Mr Greer’s application for bail, but should be able to assist Mr Greer in respect of his appeal and the matters he has raised.

4. Mr Greer has previously raised concerns about his access to a computer in prison.  As recorded in the minute of MacKenzie J, the Department of Corrections has been reminded on several occasions of its obligations under reg 193 of the Corrections Regulations 2005.[4]  If this issue remains a problem for Mr Greer, then it may be raised by him in support of his appeal, but, as this Court has previously held, it is not of itself a ground for the grant of bail pending appeal.[5]

   [4]R v Greer HC Masterton CRI-2012-035-991, 16 May 2014 (Minute of MacKenzie J) at [5].

   [5]Ludlow v R [2012] NZCA 447 at [7]; Williamson v R [2010] NZCA 541 at [7]–[10]; and R v Greer CA179/06, 21 December 2006 at [4].

5. Accordingly, none of the grounds raised by Mr Greer satisfies me that it is in the interests of justice to grant him bail pending his appeal.  No exceptional circumstances have been made out.[6]

   [6]Compare Iti v R [2012] NZCA 307 at [7] citing Ellis v R, above n 3, at 560.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent