R v Lau

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-464 [2013] NZHC 1782

THE QUEEN

v

IVY LAU

Hearing: 16 July 2013

Appearances: B Smith for Crown
L Freyer for Prisoner

Sentence: 16 July 2013

[FINAL] SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v IVY LAU [2013] NZHC 1782 [16 July 2013]

[1] On 18 June 2013, I delivered interim sentencing remarks in which I indicated that I considered a sentence of home detention was appropriate having regard to the factors referred to in my remarks.[1] I then adjourned sentencing to enable enquiries to be made to ascertain whether or not it would be possible for Ms Lau to continue working whilst serving a sentence of home detention. Those enquiries have now been made, and I have received a supplementary appendix from the Department of Corrections. This confirms it will be possible to install monitoring equipment at Ms Lau’s place of employment.

[1] R v Lau [2013] NZHC 1463.

[2] The bail assessor has, however, raised two concerns. The first is that the monitoring equipment may get knocked over because of the position in which it will need to be installed in the staff room and office of Ms Lau’s work premises. I consider that issue can easily be managed by Ms Lau and her employer, and I do not propose to make any condition in relation to it. The next issue is that the nearest toilet to the shop is 100 metres away from the shop across a public concourse.

[3] In addition, counsel for Ms Lau advises me this morning that fire drills are regularly held at the shopping complex in which Ms Lau’s place of employment is situated. These require Ms Lau to vacate the shop and to walk to an assembly point approximately 100 metres away. I consider both these issues can be appropriately dealt with by making it a condition of the sentence of home detention that Ms Lau should be permitted to leave her shop to go to the toilet and to comply with the requirements of the fire drills. In practical terms, I imagine that this will mean that the permitted radius from which Ms Lau will be able to be away from the monitoring equipment will need to be enlarged to approximately 100 metres. This is a practical issue that the monitoring company ought to be able to sort out.

[4] I reserve leave, however, to both the probation officer and the monitoring company to ask the Court to revisit the conditions I am imposing in the event that practical difficulties arise.

[5] Finally, counsel for Ms Lau has indicated that Ms Lau shares the care of her daughter. This requires her to drop her daughter at a kindergarten each Tuesday and

Wednesday morning. She then needs to pick her daughter up each Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday afternoons her partner picks the child up, so there is no requirement for Ms Lau to attend to that task on Wednesdays. I propose to provide for this also within the conditions of home detention.

Sentence

[6] I therefore sentence Ms Lau to ten months home detention. I impose the following conditions:

1.Ms Lau is to travel immediately from Court to the approved address and is to await the arrival there of her probation officer and a representative of the monitoring company.

2.She is to serve her sentence at that address and is to present herself at the door of the address if required to do so by the police or a probation officer.

3.It is a condition of her sentence that she shall be permitted to leave her home address to attend her place of employment on terms and conditions to be agreed between the probation officer and Ms Lau.

4.Those conditions are to permit Ms Lau to leave her shop in order to go to the toilet and to comply with the requirements of any fire drills conducted at the complex.

5.Each Tuesday and Wednesday, Ms Lau shall be permitted to make a detour between her residence and place of employment in order to drop her child off at kindergarten. Each Tuesday afternoon, she is similarly permitted to make a detour on the way home from her place of employment in order to pick her child up.

6.Ms Lau is not to consume alcohol or illegal drugs during the sentence of home detention.

7.Ms Lau is to attend any counselling and/or other forms of rehabilitative activity recommended by her probation officer.

[7] Stand down.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:
L Freyer, Public Defence Service, Auckland

In the case of R v Lau, the defendant, Ivy Lau, was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. Lau had previously been found guilty of a criminal offence and was subject to sentencing. The primary dispute in this case concerned the appropriate form and conditions of Lau's sentence, specifically whether home detention would be an appropriate and manageable form of punishment, given Lau's employment situation and other personal obligations. The court was required to balance Lau's need to continue working with the necessity to ensure compliance with the terms of her detention.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Lau and establishing the conditions under which she would serve that sentence. The court had to consider the practicalities of monitoring Lau while she was at work and ensuring that she could meet her personal and employment obligations without breaching the conditions of her detention. The court also needed to address concerns raised by the bail assessor and Lau's counsel regarding potential difficulties in monitoring Lau due to the physical layout of her workplace and her childcare responsibilities.

The court concluded that a sentence of home detention was appropriate, with specific conditions to accommodate Lau's work environment and personal obligations. The court accepted that the installation of monitoring equipment at Lau's workplace was feasible and could be managed with minor adjustments. Concerns about the distance to the nearest toilet and the necessity to participate in fire drills were addressed by allowing Lau to leave her workplace for these purposes within a specified radius. Additionally, provisions were made to allow Lau to fulfill her childcare duties by permitting her to make detours to drop off and pick up her child from kindergarten. The court also imposed standard conditions prohibiting alcohol and drug use and requiring participation in recommended rehabilitative activities.

Lau was sentenced to ten months of home detention with the aforementioned conditions. The court reserved the right to revisit and adjust these conditions if practical difficulties arose during the term of the sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established