Kawiti (aka Brown) v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA203/2013
[2013] NZCA 491

BETWEEN	MITAI PARAONE KAWITI (AKA MITAI ROBIN BROWN) Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Telephone

Conference:

11 October 2013

Counsel:

Appellant in person
K-T Brown assisting Applicant for part of telephone conference
B F Windley for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

16 October 2013 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF WHTE J

The further application for bail is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Kawiti’s first application for bail was declined by me in my judgment delivered on 19 July 2013.[1]
[1]Kawiti v R [2013] NZCA 324.
Mr Kawiti has made a further application for bail under s 70 of the Bail Act 2000 pending determination of his appeal against sentence. He has filed a further written application and a memorandum in support dated 11 October 2013, which he read at the telephone conference which was arranged to enable him to respond to the Crown’s memorandum opposing his further application. As on the previous occasion Mr Kawiti offered a prayer in Te Reo at the commencement of the telephone conference.
I personally have considered the further application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.[2]
[2]As I noted in the first review decision, pursuant to s 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, this proceeding continues in accordance with the law as it was before the commencement date. This accords with the general principles of ss 7 and 18 of the Interpretation Act 1999.
The relevant principles, statutory provisions and authorities are referred to in my previous judgment at [5]–[6].
Mr Kawiti confirmed the concern apparent from his memorandum of 11 October 2013 that he sought an extension of time for the filing and service of his particularised grounds of appeal which, in terms of the minute of Stevens J dated 19 September 2013, were due on 11 October 2013. Mr Kawiti sought an extension of time of one month. Without opposition from the Crown, I granted him an extension of time for the filing and service of his particularised grounds of appeal to 15 November 2013.
Mr Kawiti reiterated the practical difficulties that he claims justify the grant of bail pending the hearing of his appeal. He is particularly concerned that, having been moved to a prison in the South Island, he no longer has close face-to-face contact (kanohi ki te kanohi) with his whānau agent and that this presents difficulties for him in preparing for his appeal. At the same time, however, he confirmed that he has had more telephone contact with his agent since he has been in the South Island prison. Ms Windley also confirmed that the Crown will assist with ensuring that copies of relevant documents are made available to Mr Kawiti’s agent and that, as noted in the Crown memorandum, Mr Kawiti will have access to his agent through audio-visual facilities at the South Island prison.
In these circumstances I am not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant Mr Kawiti’s further application for bail pending his appeal. No new matters constituting exceptional circumstances have been made out.

Result

The further application for bail is therefore declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant Mitai Paraone Kawiti, also known as Mitai Robin Brown, has filed a further application for bail against the respondent, the Queen. The appeal pertains to the denial of the appellant's initial bail application, which was previously declined by the court in a judgment issued on 19 July 2013. The appellant, currently detained, seeks bail pending the determination of his appeal against his sentence. The court, led by Justice White, conducted a telephone conference on 11 October 2013 to address the appellant's request, with the appellant representing himself and being assisted by K-T Brown for part of the conference, while B F Windley represented the Crown.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances justified granting the appellant bail pending the appeal against his sentence. The appellant argued that his relocation to a South Island prison had disrupted his close face-to-face contact with his whānau agent, thereby complicating his ability to prepare for the appeal. The court needed to assess whether these difficulties constituted exceptional circumstances warranting bail. Additionally, the court had to consider the statutory provisions under which the appeal was being heard and whether they mandated adherence to the law as it stood prior to the commencement of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Justice White, after considering the arguments and the statutory framework, found that no new exceptional circumstances had been presented that warranted a departure from the earlier decision to deny bail. The appellant had increased telephone contact with his whānau agent since his relocation, and the Crown had committed to facilitating the availability of necessary documents. The court held that the appellant's concerns, while valid, did not sufficiently alter the balance of considerations to warrant bail. Consequently, the further application for bail was declined. The court emphasized that the interests of justice did not support granting the appellant bail under the circumstances presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established