R v K HC Auckland CRI 2007-004-6217

[2008] NZHC 648

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-004-006217

QUEEN

v

K

Hearing:         7 May 2008

Appearances: Ms Reid for Crown

Mr Mansfield for accused

Judgment:      7 May 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

R Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R V K HC AK CRI 2007-004-006217  7 May 2008

[1]      Mr K   you appear today because the police claim you have breached a curfew condition attaching to your bail.  You were granted bail in March 2007 and have been generally compliant with the conditions attaching to bail.  There was an agreed variation allowing you to swap your residence at 3/12 Tahi Terrace, Kelston on 18 April 2008, to 1/12 Tahi Terrace on 19 April 2008.   On 18 April 2008 a curfew check was done at 3/12 Tahi Terrace but you were not present.  Whether or not there was a breach is complicated somewhat by the fact that the residential address changed an hour and 10 minutes after the curfew check, so that from 19

April 2008 you were entitled to reside at the bail address of 1/12 Tahi Terrace, Kelston.

[2]      You have instructed Mr Mansfield who appears for you that you were at home that night.   Because the alleged bail breach occurred on 18 April 2008 you cannot say whether you were at home at the 1/12 or 3/12 Tahi Terrace address and the police did not check the address that you were entitled to move to the next day. Although there is  some  uncertainty about  that,  counsel  are  in  agreement  that  a warning should be given to you in respect of the curfew check and the finding that you were not present at the address.

[3]      It is obviously important for you that you comply with the conditions of bail. The Crown today have expressed concern that on a check by the police of the 1/12

Tahi Terrace property they were told by someone that you were not living there. You can expect that the police will be conducting curfew checks on that property from now on so if you are not living there then you will end up in custody.

[4]      I am not going to direct that a breach of bail be entered in the Crown book. The breach is disputed, and I do not see the need to resolve the issue as the Crown concedes it was possibly, at most, a technical breach.  The circumstances of this are something that another Judge could take into account if you did subsequently appear on a breach of bail.  So you are warned about the importance of complying with the bail conditions.  You are nodding your head and I can see that you understand that.

Winkelmann J