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

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.
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].

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.
Bail is opposed by the Crown.
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.

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.
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

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).
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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Greer v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Greer v The Queen [2015] NZCA 1
Case: [2015] NZCA 1
Decision Date: 16 January 2015 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Ivo Greer applied for bail pending the hearing of his appeal against his conviction and sentence. Greer was convicted after a jury trial in the High Court at Wellington in May 2014 on various charges, including sexual violation by rape, threatening to kill, aggravated burglary, possession of an offensive weapon, and drug supply. The sentences imposed ranged from imprisonment to preventive detention. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard Greer's application for bail under the Bail Act 2000. The primary issue was whether the Court should grant bail to Greer while his appeal was being heard, considering the principles outlined in the Bail Act. The Court considered the grounds provided by Greer for his bail application, including intercepted communications, difficulties accessing a computer for research, and issues with his legal adviser. The Court noted that the Department of Corrections had been reminded of its obligations regarding computer access, but this alone was not a ground for bail. The Court held that none of Greer's grounds satisfied the balance of probabilities test for bail under the Bail Act, and no exceptional circumstances were present. Therefore, the Court declined the application for bail.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, carefully weighed the principles of the Bail Act against the specific circumstances presented by Greer. The Court found that the difficulties in accessing a computer and the intercepted communications did not constitute grounds for bail. The Court also considered that Greer's legal adviser, although facing access issues, would still be able to assist with the appeal. The Court concluded that none of the grounds provided by Greer met the threshold for granting bail under the Act. The Court's decision reflects a balanced approach to the principles of justice and the specific context of Greer's case, ultimately declining the bail application.

Orders