P v Police HC Rotorua CRI 2008-463-79

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2008-463-79

P
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 4 December 2008

Appearances: O Brittain for the Appellant
C Macklin for the Crown

Judgment: 4 December 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms O Brittain, Harry Edward, Solicitors, Rotorua
Mr C Macklin, Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

P V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI 2008-463-79 4 December 2008

[1] Mr P appeals against refusal of bail. Bail was refused in the District Court on 10 November 2008 after Mr P pleaded not guilty to a charge of refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken under the provisions of the Land Transport Act.

[2] Since the appeal was lodged the circumstances have changed and it is appropriate for me to assess the question of bail as if it were an original application, although technically it sill proceeds by way of appeal. Accordingly, there is no issue arising in respect of the decision of the learned District Court Judge.

[3] The change in circumstances is that Mr P has now pleaded guilty. In the normal course that might make his application for bail more difficult having regard to s 16 of the Bail Act. However, Mr Macklin, for the Police, has now been able to advise that there is no opposition to the grant of bail pending sentence, provided certain conditions are imposed, to which I will come.

[4] Bearing in mind that Mr P has been in custody for 25 days and if he remained in custody until sentencing on 8 January 2009 he would be in custody for a further month or so, and the maximum penalty is 3 months imprisonment, I am satisfied that it is now appropriate to grant bail subject to strict conditions.

[5] Accordingly, for the technical reason I have noted the appeal is allowed and

Mr P is granted bail to appear for sentence in the District Court on 8 January

2009.

[6] Bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

a) Mr P is to live at 23A Mansfield Road, Rotorua. b) Mr P is not to drive any motor vehicle.
c) The keys to Mr P ’s car are presently with Mr P ’s son and are to remain with Mr P ’s son.

d)Mr P is not to consume alcohol, except at his home at 23A Mansfield Road.

e) Mr P is to report to the Probation Service at 1232 Haupapa Road, Rotorua on Monday 8 December 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for the purposes of preparation of a pre-sentence report and to attend further at the Probation Service on a later date, if required, for completion of
that report.

Peter Woodhouse J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of P v New Zealand Police involves an appeal by Mr P against the refusal of bail by the District Court. The central issue in the case was whether bail should be granted to Mr P, who had been charged with an offence under the Land Transport Act for refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, on 4 December 2008, with Mr O Brittain representing the appellant and Mr C Macklin representing the Crown. The court's judgment was delivered on the same day.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether bail should be granted to Mr P given the change in circumstances since the original bail refusal by the District Court. The appellant had since pleaded guilty to the charge, which under section 16 of the Bail Act might typically make bail more difficult to obtain. However, the Crown indicated there was no opposition to bail being granted, subject to certain conditions being imposed. The court had to consider these conditions and decide if granting bail would be appropriate given the appellant's plea of guilty and the potential length of time he would spend in custody if bail were not granted.

The court, presided over by Justice Woodhouse, found that granting bail was appropriate given that the appellant had already been in custody for 25 days and would be in custody for an additional month if not released. The court noted that the maximum penalty for the offence was three months' imprisonment. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions. These included that Mr P reside at a specified address, refrain from driving, not consume alcohol except at his home, and report to the Probation Service for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. The court allowed the appeal and granted bail on the basis of these conditions.

The final orders of the court were that Mr P was to be granted bail to appear for sentencing on 8 January 2009, subject to the outlined conditions. The court's decision balanced the need for public safety and the rights of the appellant, ensuring that the terms of bail were stringent enough to mitigate any risk while also considering the appellant's right to liberty.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established