H v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2007-463-64

[2007] NZHC 1819

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2007-463-64/65/66

BETWEEN  H

Appellant

AND  NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         11 June 2007

Appearances: Peter Birks for Appellant

Lisa-Marie Davis for Respondent

Judgment:      11 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

SOLICITORS

PT Birks (Rotorua) for Appellant

Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Respondent

H V POLICE HC ROT CRI-2007-463-64/65/66  11 June 2007

[1]      On 21 May 2007,  in the  District  Court  at  Rotorua,  Judge Philip  Cooper dismissed an application by Mr H   for bail on charges of burglary (x6), receiving and being unlawfully on a property.  Mr H   now appeals.  His counsel, Mr Peter Birks, must be aware that in order to challenge a decision of this nature Mr H   is required to establish that the Judge erred in law, failed to take into account the relevant considerations, or was plainly wrong.

[2]      The circumstances giving rise to the charges against Mr H   are set out in Judge Cooper’s decision.   In essence, Mr H   was apprehended while hiding at Te Arawa racecourse, Rotorua on 18 May 2007.   The police were investigating a complaint that a male had entered a room at a nearby motel.   He had stolen items from a room while the occupier was in a shower.  It is not insignificant to his appeal that Mr H   was tracked by a police dog and, while being spoken to by a dog handler, fled but was apprehended shortly afterwards.

[3]      At the Police Station Mr H   admitted breaking into three motels that night.  He admitted three additional burglaries.  When searched he was found with a large quantity of New Zealand and foreign currency.  All these factors point heavily towards  guilt.     Today,  as  before  Judge  Cooper,  Mr Birks  advises  that  the admissibility of Mr H  ’s confession will be challenged.  However, that is of no consequence now.   As the Judge noted, Mr H  ’s confessions are  admissible unless and until a Court rules otherwise.   Plainly the police case against  him is strong.

[4]      The Judge  gave weight  to this  last  factor  and to  his previous history of dishonesty offences including burglary.  They total 11, the last of which was in 2003. Additionally,  Mr H    has previous convictions  for  failing to  answer  bail and escaping custody in 1994.

[5]      This appeal is hopeless.   Mr Birks has not attempted to establish that the Judge erred in law.  He has simply repeated submissions made and rejected in the District Court.   He has added a proposal that if bailed Mr H   shall live at his mother’s address with the imposition of stringent conditions to alleviate the risks identified by the Judge.  However, no affidavit has been filed to this effect; even if it

was, given the nature of this alleged offending and Mr H  ’s previous history, I would have no confidence that he would abide by conditions imposed when granted bail.

[6]      It is plain that Mr H   presents substantial risks both of offending while on bail and of flight.   He had no prospect of a successful application for bail in the District  Court  and  his appeal to  this Court  is similarly doomed.    His appeal is

dismissed and he is remanded in custody until further order of the Court.

Rhys Harrison J