M v Police HC Napier CRI 2007 441 8

[2007] NZHC 152

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2007 441 8

M

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         15 March 2007

Appearances: NCH Hewat for Appellant

N M Graham for Respondent

Judgment:      15 March 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      This is a bail appeal.  The appellant faces a charge of sexual violation.  He was remanded in custody on 22 February 2007 when bail was declined after he had breached a bail condition.

[2]      This was not the first time that he had breached a condition of bail.  On 17

November 2006 he breached a curfew condition, his explanation being that he was visiting his partner in hospital.  His partner had apparently had a child.  Following that appearance he was bailed.  Then on 18 December 2006 he again was found to be

in  breach  of  the  curfew  condition  and  when  he  appeared  on  20  December  he

M V POLICE HC NAP CRI 2007 441 8  15 March 2007

indicated that he had been evicted from the address to which he had been bailed by his partner.  Again, he was bailed.

[3]      When he appeared on 22 February he again indicated through his counsel, Mr Hewat, that he had been asked to leave the property by his partner.  The Judge noted that he had previously had a bail warning and despite that warning had failed to comply with the conditions of bail.  Bail was refused.

[4]      This appeal has been mounted on a number of grounds:  first, that the trial is likely to be four or five months away;  second, there are probably difficulties with comprehension of English;  third, he has no previous convictions;  and, finally,  that in all the circumstances the remand in custody was inappropriate.   Ms Graham indicated that if this appeal fails his trial will take place in May, in other words, approximately two months from now.

[5]      While  I can understand  this  appeal  having been  pursued,  there  does  not appear to be any sound basis on which I could overturn the discretion exercised by the Judge.   He rightly noted that there had been a previous warning.   Even if the appellant had difficulty with comprehending English the previous incidents should have been sufficient to bring home to him that he must comply with bail conditions.

[6]      My decision not to interfere also reflects that the trial will proceed in May.  If that  does  not  prove  to  be  the  case  then  the  appellant  should  make  a  further application for bail to the District Court and under those circumstances I would have thought that the application would stand every chance of success.

Solicitors:         NCH Newat, Napier

Crown Solicitor, Napier