Hana v Police HC Wellington CRI-2007-485-42

[2007] NZHC 1755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2007-485-42

BETWEEN  BERNETT HANA Appellant

AND  NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         24 May 2007

Appearances: M Dixon for Appellant

C J Boshier for Respondent

Judgment:      24 May 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1]      This   is   an   appeal   against   the   imposition   of   a   bail   condition   by Judge S E Thomas in the District Court at Wellington on 9 May 2007, following the release on bail of the appellant.  He has pleaded not guilty to three charges, namely that on 4 May 2007 he consumed the class C controlled drug cannabis;  had in his possession cannabis;  and behaved in an offensive manner in a public place, namely Courtenay Place.

[2]      The condition imposed was that the appellant not enter Courtenay Place, Wellington between Taranaki Street and Cambridge Terrace.  He appeals against the imposition of that condition, the grounds specified in the notice being, that the condition “does not promote the purpose of the Bail Act”, that is, “does not prevent re-offending”.  Ms Dixon, on behalf of the appellant, emphasised that point and submitted that the condition simply placed a burden of the appellant’s presence on other parts of the city because it is said he lives and sleeps on the street, and will

continue to offend wherever he may be.

HANA V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2007-485-42  24 May 2007

[3]      If there is a risk that the appellant may offend whilst on bail, in terms of the mandatory provision in s8(1)(c) of the Bail Act 2000, he might count himself fortunate that the District Court Judge granted bail.   It is a somewhat perverse argument that a condition should not be imposed because, by reason of the nature of it, it is inevitable an accused will re-offend.

[4]      Mr Hana has 114 previous convictions and 13 since March of 2006.   The recent   convictions   involve   multiple  convictions   for  using   cannabis,   obscene language, disorderly behaviour, obscene exposure, offensive behaviour.  His other convictions cover a miscellany of crimes, including burglary, assault with intent to injure, causing death through driving under the influence, wounding with intent to cause  grievous  bodily  harm,  theft,  multiple  drug  convictions.    Clearly  he  is  a recidivist offender.  At the moment his offending is largely of the nuisance character, although continued consumption of drugs in public is rather more than that.

[5]      Members   of   the    public   and    the    commercial   community    in    the Courtenay Place/Taranaki  Street/Kent  Terrace  area,  and  those  who  frequent  that entertainment and commercial section of the city, continue to express concern over the recidivist activities of Mr Hana.  The condition was necessary and appropriate. Indeed, it could have been more far-reaching given the information that has been provided that Mr Hana intends to continue to behave in a similar way in the Cuba Mall area.  That is outside the ambit of this appeal.

[6]      The character of his past conduct and behaviour of the appellant, and his history of offending whilst on bail, are such which clearly justify the imposition of this condition.  As a consequence the appeal is dismissed.  Bail will continue subject to that condition.  I know you will advise Mr Hana Ms Dixon that if the condition is breached he is liable to be arrested and the prospect of bail being thereafter granted through offending whilst on bail would be remote.  The appeal is dismissed.

………………………………

J W Gendall J

Solicitors:

M Dixon, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Respondent