Prince v Police

[2019] NZCA 250

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA225/2019
 [2019] NZCA 250

BETWEEN	BRADLEY RICHARD JOHN PRINCE Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	29 May 2019
Court:	French, Miller and Lang JJ
Counsel:	D A Ewen and T W Luders for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	25 June 2019 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against the decision of the High Court declining to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

1. Mr Prince pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of breaching a protection order.[1]  The offending related to persistent contact Mr Prince had initiated with his mother in breach of a protection order.  Mr Prince entered his guilty pleas after receiving a sentence indication of seven months imprisonment on 13 March 2019.[2]

   [1]Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(2)(a) and 49(1)(b).

   [2]New Zealand Police v Prince DC Hutt Valley CRI-2019-096-000894, 13 March 2019.

2. Mr Prince applied unsuccessfully for bail on 16 April 2019.[3]  An appeal to the High Court against that decision was also unsuccessful.[4] 

   [3]Police v Prince [2019] NZDC 7262.

   [4]Prince v Police [2019] NZHC 872.

3. Mr Prince was originally due to be sentenced on 8 May 2019.  This proved not to be possible because a report directed to be prepared under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 was not available by then.  The report had been directed to assist the Court in formulating appropriate release conditions to minimise the risk of further similar offending in the future.  Mr Prince applied unsuccessfully for bail when sentencing was adjourned on 8 May and was remanded in custody pending sentence on 7 June 2019.[5] 

   [5]Police v Prince [2019] NZDC 8605.

4. Mr Prince did not appeal after bail was refused on 8 May 2019.  Instead, he asked the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant him bail pending sentence.[6]  In a judgment delivered on 15 May 2019, Mallon J declined to exercise the Court’s inherent jurisdiction in that way.[7]  Instead, she treated the application as an appeal against the second refusal to grant bail under s 44(1) of the Bail Act 2000 (the Act).  After considering the merits of the appeal she dismissed it.[8]

   [6]Prince v Police [2019] NZHC 1071.

   [7]At [29].

   [8]At [41].

5. Mr Prince then appealed to this Court under s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 against the Judge’s decision declining to determine the application under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.  At the request of his counsel, Mr Ewen, the appeal was set down for hearing as a matter of urgency.  The need for urgency arose because it was common ground that by 7 June 2019 Mr Prince will have served more time in custody on remand than he would be required to serve when sentenced.

6. It became clear during the hearing before us on 29 May 2019 that the appeal raised issues of some complexity.  These included the approach the High Court should take to the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail given the fact that Mr Prince also had a statutory right of appeal under s 44 of the Act.

7. During argument we advised Mr Ewen that we did not consider it likely that we would be able to deliver our decision prior to 7 June 2019, when Mr Prince was due to be sentenced in the District Court.  Mr Ewen advised us that he would take instructions and file a memorandum advising us whether Mr Prince still wanted us to deliver a decision even if he was released from prison on 7 June 2019.  Mr Ewen then filed a memorandum on 31 May 2019 indicating that Mr Prince sought the judgment of the Court on the issues raised, “if only for the benefit of future cases”. 

8. We have now received confirmation that Mr Prince was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment in the District Court on 7 June 2019.[9]  We therefore assume he has been released from prison subject to specified release conditions.  As a result, the issue of bail pending sentence is now moot. 

   [9]Police v Prince [2019] NZDC 11268.

9. We decline to accept Mr Prince’s invitation to deliver judgment notwithstanding his release from prison because this Court does not deliver judgments that are purely advisory in nature.[10]  Furthermore, bail appeals are by their nature highly contextual, and we do not consider any decision based on the circumstances of the present case is likely to be of significant value in future cases.    

Result

[10]R v Gordon-Smith [2008] NZSC 56, [2009] 1 NZLR 721 at [18].

1. The appeal against the decision of the High Court declining to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent