M v Police HC Christchurch Cri-2007-409-117

[2007] NZHC 1839

This case has been anonymized

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF HEARING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2007-409-000117

M

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         14 June 2007

Counsel:        P F Johnson for Appellant

Z R Johnston for Respondent

Judgment:      14 June 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]      This is an appeal against refusal of bail.  Judge Bisphan declined bail in the District Court on 7 May.   He did so  largely on the basis that the views of the complainant, which were at centre stage in terms of s8(4) of the Bail Act, were determinative.  I am in agreement with that approach.  I will explain why.

[2]      The appellant was charged with offences of assaulting his partner, physically abusing her, sending texts to her (these two matters being breaches of a protection order), and also causing property damage to furniture and items within the home. These allegations rise in the context of a relationship which had subsisted for about

12 months with reference to which there was a protection order made in August of

M V NZ POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2007-409-000117  14 June 2007

2006.   In effect  the prosecution case  is that  in the context  of an argument  the appellant effectively lost it and the assault occurred, the physical abuse followed, subsequently the text abuse and that there was as well property damage caused.

[3]      The seriousness of the allegations from the complainant’s perspective are emphasised when one has regard to the circumstance that firstly she was heavily pregnant at the time and was due to deliver her child before now, or about now. Moreover, the complainant, subsequent to 10 February, removed herself from the home and has been in a women’s refuge, at least for some period of time, if not continuing to the present.

[4]      On the basis of the Judge’s decision, and even in the face of the submissions which Mr Johnson has made this morning, I would not have found any reason for differing   from  the   view   which   he   formed,   particularly  given  the   statutory requirement in cases involving protection orders, to treat the protection of the victim as a paramount consideration.

[5]      But in addition I note from the Crown submissions that the charges are to be the subject of a defended hearing on 5 July 2007.  Hence it is the case that the matter should be resolved in about three weeks time.  If there was any basis upon which bail might be granted, it seems to me that the imminence of the fixture is an added factor which puts paid to that thought.

[6]      For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

P F Johnson Barrister, Christchurch for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent