R v Bidois

[2012] NZHC 2303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-079-000640 [2012] NZHC 2303

THE QUEEN

v

FIONA BIDOIS

Hearing:         7 September 2012

Appearances: H Paignton for the Applicant (Department of Corrections) M M Dorset for the Respondent

Judgment:      7 September 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Counsel:     M M Dorset P O Box 366 Rotorua 3040 for Ms Bidois

Copies To:   Community   Probation   Area   Office   (Waiariki   Area)   P   O   Box   12038

Rotorua South Rotorua 3045 for the Department of Corrections

Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman (N G Belton) P O Box 13063 (DX HP40041) Tauranga Central Tauranga 3141 for the Crown

R v BIDOIS HC ROT CRI-2011-079-000640 [7 September 2012]

[1]      This matter is before the Court as an application by a probation officer at Paeroa to cancel a sentence of nine months’ home detention that Simon France J imposed on Ms Bidois on 14 March 2012.  It appears from the sentencing notes that, but for that sentence, Ms Bidois would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

[2]      Since the imposition of that sentence, Ms Bidois has breached her sentence twice.  She was sentenced in the District Court on 17 August 2012 to an extra 14 days’ home detention for those breaches.

[3]      The question for me today is whether or not the sentence of home detention that was imposed on 14 March 2012 should be cancelled.

[4]      I  have  received  a  letter  from  the  Department  of  Corrections,  dated

6 September 2012, which notes that, in the opinion of the writer, Ms Bidois is:

Showing signs of improved motivation to address factors that may decrease the  likelihood  of  further  offending  by  her.     She  is  demonstrating  a meaningful attempt to comply with the conditions of her sentences by reporting when directed, attending Community Work, and is showing some insight into her offending behaviour.

[5]      In the light of those comments from the probation officer, I consider that it would wrong at this time to consider cancelling the sentence of home detention.  If I did so, it is likely that it would be replaced with some term of imprisonment.

[6]      I therefore dismiss the application.

[7]      I do note that whilst there have been signs of improvement in Ms Bidois’ conduct, there are comments in the sentencing notes of Simon France J that suggest that on earlier occasions, she has had difficulty with compliance and with taking directions from persons in authority.  The two breaches of home detention may well confirm that.  I simply note this here because whilst it is good to see an improvement in her motivation, it is important that she realise that any further breaches of the

sentence of home detention are very likely to result in this sentence being cancelled and replaced by a sentence of imprisonment.

Duffy J