R v Bishop HC Gisborne CRI 2010-016-2882

[2011] NZHC 1413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI 2010-016-2882

THE QUEEN

v

EZRADONNA BISHOP

Hearing:         21 October 2011 (Heard at Wellington)

Counsel:         Ms H Lanham for the Crown

Mr B Crowley for the Applicant

Judgment:      21 October 2011

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]      Ms Bishop was convicted on a charge of wilfully attempting to obstruct the course  of  justice.     She  was  sentenced  in  the  High  Court  to  nine  months’ imprisonment but granted leave under s 80I of the Sentencing Act to apply to the Court for cancellation of the sentence and substitution of a sentence of home detention.  She now applies pursuant to that leave.

[2]      Under s 80I, leave can only be granted if the Court would have sentenced the offender to a sentence of home detention if a suitable residence had been available. At the time she was sentenced Ms Bishop did not have a suitable address.  She has now found a suitable address, as confirmed by the Home Detention Re-sentencing

Report.

R v BISHOP HC GIS CRI 2010-016-2882 21 October 2011

[3]      Under s 80K(4), the Court may grant the application if satisfied of the matters in s 80A(2).  The Crown accepts that those matters are satisfied and so it does not oppose the application.  I am satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment should be cancelled and substituted with a sentence of home detention.

[4]      Ms Bishop has served nearly three months of the nine month sentence of imprisonment.    If  the  sentence  were  not  cancelled  she  would  be  released  on

13 December this year.  In the circumstances I consider the appropriate term of the home detention sentence to be two months’ and I substitute the sentence accordingly. In addition to the standard conditions set out in s 80C the special conditions will be as  per  the  recommendation  in  the  Home  Detention  Re-sentencing  Report  dated

13 October 2011.  This includes a condition to attend and complete a programme of drug and alcohol counselling to the satisfaction of her supervising probation officer and her counselling provider.  I understand that Ms Bishop is willing to undertake such a programme and believes that it will be useful for her.  These conditions are accepted as appropriate by both counsel.

Mallon J