M v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2007-463-69

[2007] NZHC 1821

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2007-463-69

BETWEEN  M

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         11 June 2007

Appearances: Timothy Barclay for Appellant

Lisa-Marie Davis for Respondent

Judgment:      11 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

SOLICITORS

Timothy Barclay (Rotorua) for Appellant

Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Respondent

M V POLICE HC ROT CRI-2007-463-69  11 June 2007

[1]      Mr  M    appeals  against  a  decision  in  the  District  Court  at Rotorua.   On 17 May 2007 Judge Gregory Hikaka refused his application for bail pending trial on charges of assault with intent to injure and breach of a protection order (relating to the complainant in the first charge).

[2]      Mr Barclay, who appears today for Mr M  , advises that Mr M   wishes to withdraw his appeal but without prejudice to his rights.  He refers to two prospective  events  which  might  assume  relevance  –  one  is  an  instruction  from Mr M   that the complainant no longer holds fears for her safety; the other is that the police may re-lay the charges summarily.  Also there is to be a status hearing in the District Court on 19 June.

[3]      I have advised Mr Barclay that a withdrawal of the appeal is absolute.   It cannot  be  entered  on  a  without  prejudice  basis.     By  abandoning  his  appeal Mr M   abandons his rights to challenge Judge Hikaka’s refusal of bail.   He may, of course, elect to make a fresh application to the District Court at a later date. In the event that Court refused him bail he would have independent rights of appeal.

[4]      I note that, with respect, this appeal had no chance of success whatsoever. Judge Hikaka’s assessment of the relevant criteria is beyond legal challenge.   The circumstances of Mr M  ’s alleged offending coupled with, first, his previous convictions for offences committed while on bail, some 17 in number, and, second, his conviction for breaching a protection order on 18 December 2006 meant that he had no chance of securing bail.  The Judge correctly identified all three mandatory criteria  as  counting  against  Mr M    –  he  posed  risks  of  interfering  with witnesses if granted bail, of offending while on bail, and of flight.

[5]      Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Rhys Harrison J