R v F HC Nelson CRI 2007 042 3707
[2008] NZHC 1797
•19 November 2008
This case has been anonymized
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY
CRI 2007 042 3707
THE QUEEN
v
F
AS
S
S
Hearing: 19 November 2008
Counsel: R G Marshall & H Boyd-Wilson for Crown
C Ruane for Accused F
S Zindel for Accused A
B Daniell-Smith for Accused S
H Riddoch for Accused S
A Bamford for Accused S
Judgment: 19 November 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J ON BAIL APPLICATIONS
[1] Subsequent to entry of convictions in this trial applications for bail pending sentencing were made on behalf of Messrs F , A , S and S .
[2] The outcome of the trial is that Mr F is to be sentenced on four convictions of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine. Mr A and Mr S
R V F AND ORS HC NEL CRI 2007 042 3707 19 November 2008
one conviction of conspiring to supply methamphetamine and Mr S one of supplying methamphetamine and five of supplying cannabis.
[3] Their applications for bail are to be dealt with under s 13 of the Bail Act 2000 which places the onus on the defendant to show cause why bail should be granted.
[4] After hearing from counsel for each man, I am not satisfied is respect of any of them that they have discharged that onus. Counsel for each has foreshadowed arguments that home detention may be a sufficient sentence. I have recognised that prospect in terms of requesting appendices to the pre-sentence reports, but my present view is that it is very unlikely to be the appropriate sentence for any of them. Each now faces a period of four weeks until the sentencing in Christchurch, and that is not inordinate. All men have past convictions, but not of a type that are particularly worrying, recent or relevant to the present application for bail.
[5] I acknowledge that in Mr S ’s case he was to have had minor dental surgery at Nelson Hospital next week. Alas, that will have to wait. I do not treat Mr S as any more of a flight risk because of his tardy attendance on a number of occasions during the trial.
[6] I also acknowledge that remands in custody in Christchurch may make the completion of satisfactory reports for sentencing more difficult when they have been resident in Nelson, but that is a factor in serious offending which I consider has to be lived with.
[7] I am also mindful of an apparent inconsistency between my declining bail for all these men, and my earlier acceding to an application on behalf of the co-accused, S , who has been on electronic bail. On his behalf counsel earlier requested that electronic bail continue because the process of pre-sentence reports had already begun, reflecting guilty pleas he entered earlier. Mr S may now consider himself fortunate in the sequence in which these issues were dealt with, and his electronic bail is to continue. However, that is not a reason to alter the outcome in regards to the other accused.
[8] Accordingly, I remand each of the accused F , A , S and
S in custody for sentence on 16 December 2008.
Dobson J
Solicitors:
Pitt & Moore, Nelson for the Crown
Zindels, Nelson for A
Daniell-Smith & Co, Nelson for S
Bamford Law, Nelson for S
0
0
0