R v Gray

[2019] NZHC 954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-009-007857 [2019] NZHC 954

THE QUEEN

v

HAYDEN ANTHONY GRAY

Hearing:

1 May 2019

Appearances:

D L Elsmore for the Crown

J M Stringer for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 May 2019

Reasons:

2 May 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

(Bail)

[1]                  Following a five day  Judge  alone  trial,  I  have  this  morning  convicted  Mr Gray of two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 188(1) Crimes Act 1961.

[2]                  The victim was his infant son. The offences were committed at least 10 days apart during the victim’s first month of life. The son suffered permanent severe neurological damage which interfered with his normal functions of living and he died, from complications arising from that, one year and one day after the head injuries were inflicted.

R v HAYDEN ANTHONY GRAY [2019] NZHC 954 [1 May 2019]

[3]A term of imprisonment is inevitable.

[4]                  After I had delivered my verdict this morning, and remanded Mr Gray to appear for sentence later in May 2019, Ms Stringer made an application on his behalf for bail.

[5]                  Ms Stringer acknowledged the requirement under s 13 of the Bail Act 2000 that the Court take account of the fact that the defendant is likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment. She nevertheless emphasised the fact that the defendant has been on bail and complied with all conditions of bail since he was charged. In her submission the interests of justice favour the defendant being permitted  to remain on bail until he is sentenced.

[6]                  For the Crown Ms Elsmore opposed bail primarily on the ground that a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable.

Reasons for refusal

[7]                  I refused bail having regard to the what I view as the inevitability of a sentence of imprisonment. There is nothing put forward in relation to the personal circumstances of the defendant or his immediate family to establish that the interests of justice are in favour of bail. The defendant has had more than a month since the completion of the trial itself to ready himself for the likelihood of a denial of bail should he be convicted of one or both of the serious charges.

[8]                  In the circumstances the defendant failed to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in this particular case to grant him bail.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly, Christchurch Barrister:

Jannah Stringer, Barrister, Christchurch