R v Dolding HC Hamilton CRI 2006-019-1753

[2007] NZHC 1991

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2006-019-1753

QUEEN

v

AMANDA JOAN DOLDING, SHANE PAUL EGAN AND JON RENAY PUKE (AKA HEPEHI)

Hearing:         13 August 2007 (Heard at Hamilton)

Appearances: P Crayton and J O'Sullivan for Crown

G Boot for Accused A Dolding

P Mabey QC for Accused S Egan

K Burroughs for Accused J Puke

Judgment:      13 August 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

Solicitors:

Almao Douch, PO Box 19-173 Hamilton Gavin Boot Law, PO Box 19043 Hamilton Paul Mabey QC, PO Box 13199 Tauranga

K Burroughs, Solicitor, PO Box 19 307 Hamilton

R V DOLDING & ORS HC HAM CRI 2006-019-1753  13 August 2007

[1]      Following various pleas of guilty being entered by Ms Dolding, Mr Egan and

Mr Puke, questions of bail have arisen.

Ms Dolding

[2]      In relation to Ms Dolding, there is no issue.   She does not face a term of imprisonment on sentence.

[3]      Bail is granted on the term that she is to attend Court for sentence at 9:00 am,

20 September 2007.

Mr Puke

[4]      Mr Burroughs on behalf of Mr Puke, has sought bail.   He does not contest Mr Crayton’s submission that a term of imprisonment is inevitable.   However, he submits that Mr Puke has come to Court today expecting the trial to begin in the hope that bail would be granted  each evening  and  over  the  weekend.    He has, therefore, not got his affairs in order for a term of imprisonment.

[5]      Mr Crayton opposes the granting of bail on any basis.  He emphasises the fact that the crimes to which Mr Puke has pleaded guilty are serious.   He suggests a starting point for sentence in the vicinity of at least five years.  I make no comment on the appropriate starting point, but it is clear that these convictions will inevitably lead to a sentence of imprisonment and that the crimes are serious.

[6]      I consider that the terms of s 13 of the Bail Act 2000 allow me to consider a limited grant of bail upon conviction taking into account the terms of s 13(3)(c), “the personal circumstances of the defendant  and the defendant’s  immediate family”. However, despite Mr Burroughs’ strong plea I do not consider that there are any particular factors relating to Mr Puke’s circumstances that warrant the granting of bail.  I have some sympathy for the request, but there is nothing in particular about Mr Puke’s circumstances such as the need to make arrangements with an employer or close down a business, or make family arrangements, that require in the interests of justice that bail be granted.

[7]      I therefore decline the request for bail.

……………………………..

Asher J