Hopcroft v Police HC Wanganui CRI 2010-483-59

[2010] NZHC 1912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2010-483-59

CASSIE LEE HOPCROFT

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing:         27 October 2010

Appearances: R Leith for Ms Hopcroft

J Woodcock for New Zealand Police

Judgment:      27 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]      Ms Hopcroft appeals against a refusal to grant her bail when she appeared in the District Court on 19 October 2010 on two sets of charges.  One set of charges (assault with a weapon, dangerous driving and driving with excess blood alcohol) relates to an incident on 29 September 2010.  In respect of those charges she entered no plea and was remanded to appear on 2 November 2010.   The second set of charges (driving while suspended x3, failing to stop for police red and blue lights x2 and reckless driving x2) relates to an incident on 1 October 2010.  In respect of those charges she entered guilty pleas and was remanded for sentencing on 15 December

2010.

[2]      The allegations in respect of 29 September 2010, which are set out in a police summary of facts, are as follows.  Ms Hopcroft was driving a car in Wanganui in the

HOPCROFT V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WANG CRI-2010-483-59  27 October 2010

mid-morning when she took exception to the driving by the driver of another car (the complainant) and a gesture made by the complainant.   Ms Hopcroft followed the other car, speeding past another vehicle.  She signalled for the complainant to stop. Ms Hopcroft and the complainant got out of their cars.  Ms Hopcroft threw a punch striking  the  complainant  on  her  head  with  the  exposed  end  of  keys  which Ms Hopcroft had in her hand. An altercation ensued during which Ms Hopcroft threatened to stab the complainant with her keys and run her over.  Ms Hopcroft got into her car and drove towards the complainant.   She stopped just short of the complainant, reversed into a parked car, pulled out onto the street in front of another car and left.  She was apprehended by the police and failed a breath screening test. An evidential blood alcohol test returned a level of blood alcohol above the legal limit.

[3]      The circumstances of the admitted offending on 1 October 2010, as set out in a  police  summary  of  facts,  are  as  follows.    Because  of  excess  demerit  points, Ms Hopcroft had been suspended from driving at about 8 am that day.   Later that morning, Ms Hopcroft was driving a car north in Otorohanga and was apprehended for driving at a speed of 122 Km/hr in a 100 Km/hr area.   When the police were confirming her licence status, Ms Hopcroft got back into her car and drove off northwards at speed.  She was pursued by the police who flashed their red and blue lights and activated the siren but she failed to stop.  She passed traffic at least three times (overtaking eight or nine vehicles) with her speed at times in excess of 140

Km/hr.  One overtaking manoeuvre was carried out on a sharp left hand bend and another on a rise, with visibility restricted and vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.   The police called off the chase in the interest of public safety.   Some minutes later Ms Hopcroft was seen driving further north.  Police again followed her with red and blue lights flashing and the siren sounding.  Ms Hopcroft failed to stop and at one point her speed was estimated at no less than 150 Km/hr in a 100 Km/hr area.   Ms Hopcroft also drove on the incorrect side of the road, cut corners and overtook a truck and a car before a blind bend.  Again the police called off the chase in the interest of public safety.  A few minutes later she was stopped with the use of a tyre deflation device, whereupon she was arrested.

[4]      Ms Hopcroft is 23 years old.  Not including these charges she has amassed 39 convictions, covering the period from 2005 to 2008.  Included in this offending are seven  convictions  for  driving  without  a  licence  or  while  disqualified,  nine convictions for other driving offences, seven convictions for failing to answer bail and four convictions for breach of community work or conditions of supervision. She has previously served a two month sentence of imprisonment but otherwise has received non-custodial sentences.  Seventeen (or thereabouts) of her offences were committed while on bail, including the failures to answer District Court bail.

[5]      The District Court Judge declined to grant bail.  He referred to the danger to the public that the offending involved, that it was repetitive and that it only came to an end with police intervention.   He noted Ms Hopcroft’s significant history of offending, the significant public safety factor involved in her offending and that with her history he did not have confidence that she would comply with any bail restrictions.   He indicated a willingness to consider any information relevant to exams which she was sitting and stood the matter down to obtain the information. The information provided at that time apparently did not persuade him that he should grant bail, and he noted that arrangements ought to be made with the prison authorities in respect of this in any event.

[6]      I agree with the District Court Judge’s assessment.  Because Ms Hopcroft is awaiting sentencing, she is only to be granted bail if she persuades me that this is in the interests of justice.  I am not persuaded that it is.

[7]      An important consideration in this is whether imprisonment is or is not likely in respect of the offending.  Counsel for Ms Hopcroft accepts that imprisonment is possible, and says that the prospects falls somewhere between likely and unlikely. He says that Ms Hopcroft has not had the opportunity to respond to a home detention or community detention sentence and to show that this is sufficient deterrence.  He notes  that  the  District  Court  Judge  has  requested  both  home  detention  and community detention appendices for the pre-sentence report.

[8]      I agree with counsel for the informant that a sentence of imprisonment is likely, although the term will be of a length where home detention will be able to be

considered.   (In saying this I do not reject community detention as possible if the sentencing judge considers that appropriate in light of the information and submissions available to him, but this seems unlikely on the information before me.) What will particularly count against Ms Hopcroft receiving a sentence of home detention is her record which gives rise to real concerns as to whether she can comply with court orders.  This will be for the sentencing judge to consider, but on the information before me I do not view imprisonment as unlikely.

[9]      Counsel for Ms Hopcroft emphasises that Ms Hopcroft’s previous offending occurred prior to her relationship with her current partner who is a stabilising influence.   He says that both the 29 September 2010 incident and the admitted offending on 1 October 2010 occurred when her partner was out of the country for three  weeks.    He  refers  to  Ms  Hopcroft’s  compliance  with  her  bail  conditions between 1 and 19 October 2010.  An affidavit from her current partner has been filed that supports these submissions.

[10]     While it does appear that Ms Hopcroft’s current partner has been a positive influence on her, I am not confident that he will be able to keep a sufficient control on her to sufficiently mitigate the risks that Ms Hopcroft would pose on bail pending sentencing.  I mean no disrespect to her partner.  But he has a busy job and cannot be expected to keep a watch on Ms Hopcroft at all times.  This is perhaps demonstrated by the two incidents which have brought Ms Hopcroft back before the court having occurred when he was out of the country for three weeks.   I also note that the offending on 1 October 2010 occurred when she was on police bail in respect of the

29 September 2010 incident.  That incident did not deter her from her offending on

1 October 2010.

[11]     Counsel for Ms Hopcroft also raises an issue with her study.  The evidence about this has come from the bar and is a bit sketchy.  She is enrolled in courses at Massey University, as a precursor to a nursing course.  There are four courses, one of which had an exam on 26 October 2010 which she was unable to sit because she was in prison.  The other three finish on 10 November 2010 and require Ms Hopcroft to submit work for which she will need access to a computer.  It is thought that this will be difficult from prison.

[12]     I am sympathetic to the issue of a remand in custody pending sentencing causing issues with university work, especially as a focus on such work towards a useful career could only be helpful to Ms Hopcroft’s rehabilitation prospects. However the information provided was just too lacking in details and evidence for me to be persuaded that it is in the interests of justice to grant her bail.

[13]     Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Mallon J

Solicitors:

R Leith, Wanganui

L Rowe, Crown Solicitor, Wanganui, [email protected]