Greer v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 658

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA714/2013
[2013] NZCA 658

BETWEEN	ALAN IVO GREER Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 December 2013
Court:	O'Regan P, Ellen France and Wild JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person with H Blackmore as McKenzie friend B F Windley for Respondent
Judgment:	16 December 2013 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by O’Regan P)

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Alan Greer, is currently on remand awaiting trial in the High Court at Wellington on 28 April 2014 on multiple counts of drug offending, one count of rape, four counts of threatening to kill, two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of possession of an offensive weapon. An earlier trial date of 30 September 2013 had been set but the trial was adjourned due to concerns as to a complainant and key Crown witness’s ability to appear and give evidence.[1] On 15 October 2013 Dobson J refused to grant Mr Greer’s bail application.[2] Mr Greer now appeals under s 66(1) of the Bail Act 2000 (the Act).[3]

Bail history

[1]R v Greer HC Wellington CRI-2012-035-991, 20 September 2013.

[2]Greer v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 2682.

[3]Section 66 of the Bail Act 2000 continues to apply to this proceeding, despite its repeal, by virtue of s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 as the proceeding was commenced before 1 July 2013.

Since his arrest in August 2012 Mr Greer has made six unsuccessful bail applications: on 28 August 2012 (before Miller J),[4] 8 October 2012 (before Kós J),[5] 13 February 2013 (before Williams J),[6] 30 May 2013 (before Williams J),[7] 23 August 2013 (before Williams J)[8] and the decision under appeal. He has also made an unsuccessful habeas corpus application, which was in essence an attempt to re‑litigate bail by other means.[9] He also appealed to this Court against the decision of Kós J declining him bail. That appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but the Court indicated it would not have been inclined to allow the appeal.[10]
[4]Greer v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 2203.
[5]Greer v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 2606.
[6]Greer v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 184.
[7]Greer v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 1259.
[8]R v Greer [2013] NZHC 2161.
[9]Greer v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections HC Wellington CIV-2013-485-159, 5 February 2013. See Greer v New Zealand Police, above n 6, at [3].
[10]Greer v R [2013] NZCA 26 at [16].
Mr Greer has 151 previous convictions,[11] 55 of which (including serious sexual and violent offences) were committed whilst he was on bail. This history triggers the restrictions on a grant of bail in ss 10 and 12 of the Act. He is also said to have interfered with and threatened a Crown witness in the present case.[12]
[11]Greer v New Zealand Police, above…

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 [2013] NZCA 658
Case: [2013] NZCA 658
Decision Date: 16 December 2013 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Greer appealed against the decision of the High Court to deny him bail. He was awaiting trial on multiple serious charges, including drug offences, rape, threatening to kill, aggravated burglary, and possession of an offensive weapon. The Court of Appeal considered the appeal against the refusal of bail under section 66(1) of the Bail Act 2000. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to take into account the impediments to his defence preparation and the weakness of the Crown case. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant must demonstrate an error of fact or law in the trial judge's decision. The court agreed with the trial judge that the appellant's history of offending on bail counted strongly against him. The court found that the appellant was unable to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that he would not commit an offence while on bail. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge's exercise of discretion to refuse bail was principled and founded on a proper weighing of the relevant considerations. The appeal against the refusal of bail was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that there had not been a material change in circumstances since the trial judge's decision. The court held that the appellant must establish that the refusal of bail was contrary to principle, or that the judge failed to consider all relevant matters or took into account irrelevant matters, or that the decision was plainly wrong. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment that the appellant's history of offending on bail counted strongly against him. The court found that the appellant was unable to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that he would not commit an offence while on bail. The court concluded that the trial judge's exercise of discretion to refuse bail was principled and founded on a proper weighing of the relevant considerations. The appeal against the refusal of bail was dismissed.

Orders