Peihopa v New Zealand Police HC Wha CRI-2008-488-37

[2008] NZHC 2431

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (EXCEPT THE OUTCOME) UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2008-488-37

TAINUI ONEROA MAHIMA EMORA PEIHOPA

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         29 July 2008

Appearances: Mr J W Watson for Appellant

Mr M B Smith for Crown

Judgment:      29 July 2008

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against refusal to grant bail]

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

Counsel:

Mr J W Watson, Barrister, Whangarei

PEIHOPA V NZ POLICE HC WHA CRI-2008-488-37  29 July 2008

[1]      Mr Peihopa appeals against the refusal of His Honour Judge Rota in the District Court to grant him bail.    Mr Peihopa faces two charges, namely being in possession of cannabis plant for supply and producing cannabis oil.

[2]      The charges against Mr Peihopa arise from an incident on 15 April 2008 when the police executed a search warrant at Mr Peihopa’s address.    There they found a jar containing 14 cannabis tinnies and a stainless steel bowl containing a quantity of cannabis oil.     They also found a razor blade in the vicinity of the cannabis oil.

[3]      Judge Rota took the view that the risk of reoffending was such that bail should be declined notwithstanding the fact that there will inevitably be some delay before this matter proceeds to trial.   In this context the Judge noted that Mr Peihopa was convicted and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment in June 2005 on charges of selling cannabis and being in possession of cannabis for the purposes of sale or supply.   The complicating factor is that that offending occurred at the same address to which Mr Peihopa now wishes to be bailed.    Mr Peihopa was also at that address when the incident that gave rise to the present charges occurred.

[4]      On appeal, Mr Watson acknowledges that the previous conviction presents a difficulty for Mr Peihopa.   He also advised me that that offending occurred whilst Mr Peihopa was still on parole in relation to the 2005 charges.

[5]      It seems to me that Mr Peihopa faces an insuperable difficulty.    All of the charges that he has faced, both past and present, relate to offending that allegedly occurred at the same address to which he proposes to go if granted bail.   By its very nature such offending involves the visit by others to an offender’s property.    The fact that Mr Peihopa was apparently prepared to be associated with cannabis in both plant and oil form whilst on parole, suggests to me that he has no scruple about continuing to be involved with drugs, notwithstanding the existence of Court orders.

[6]      I  agree  with  Judge  Rota  that  he  would  present  a  substantial  risk  of reoffending if he was to be granted bail.     For that reason, the appeal must be dismissed.

Lang J