M v Police HC Wellington CRI 2009-091-4041

[2009] NZHC 2369

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2009-091-4041

BETWEEN  M

Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         24 November 2009

Counsel:         K Bailey for the Applicant

I Murray for the Respondent

Judgment:      24 November 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1]      Mr M   moves for bail.

[2]      He is charged with the arson of his family home at 28 Gloucester Street, Porirua.  It is alleged that he set fire to it because his wife, who is in a relationship with another man, wanted to separate from him.  It is said that he set fire to the house while his wife, his child, and his wife’s new partner were in the house.

[3]      Mr M   has a history of mental illness.  It is suggested that he may have been irrational at the time.  I am told that at the time of his arrest he was subject to a Compulsory Treatment Order under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.  That was a community-based order intended to help him with his bi-polar condition.  He is also in the care of the Maori Mental Health Team.  His wife has suggested that at the time of the offence he may not have been taking his

medications.

M V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2009-091-4041  24 November

2009

[4]      Regrettably,  he  has  a  history  of  domestic  violence  and  a  number  of convictions.  The police opposition to bail states that he has failed to appear on eight occasions.

[5]      The police oppose bail, contending that Mr M   presents a significant risk to the present victims.  They refer to obsession, recent separation, a history of family violence and a history of alcohol or drug problems, among other matters.

[6]      Ms  Bailey  urges  me  to  grant  bail  to  the  Night  Shelter  at  Wellington. Mr M    would  have  the  support  of  Murray  Olsen  from  Prisoners  Aid  and Rehabilitation, and the continued involvement of the Maori Mental Health Team. He would accept curfew and reporting conditions, although the police opposition to bail  suggests  that  the  Night  Shelter  will  not  accept  people  who  are  subject  to curfews.  It is suggested that there should be a condition that he not contact Crown witnesses, excluding his wife.   It is suggested that she has no fears for her safety, believing that the fire may not have been arson, and that she continues to support Mr M  .

[7]      There was a suggestion that the fire may have been attributable to a faulty switchboard.

[8]     However, I consider that having regard to Mr M  ’s mental health difficulties, the failure of those supervising him to prevent this incident, and his history of offending of a domestic nature, there is a substantial risk of interference with witnesses and further offending.  I am not satisfied on the material before me that the risk can be appropriately managed by bail conditions.   Plainly, he needs close supervision.  A curfew is not sufficient.

[9]      The file is to be middlebanded to the District Court for trial.  This decision is

not intended to preclude a further application for bail should circumstances change.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for the Respondent