R v P HC Auckland CRI 2008-092-7177

[2010] NZHC 841

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2008-092-007177

THE QUEEN

v

P
P

Hearing:         30 April 2010

Counsel:         A McClintock for Crown

I Jayanandan for E P 
P Le'Au'Anae for S P 

Judgment:      3 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1 P   are on bail.  The bail is electronically monitored.  A condition of bail is to abstain from alcohol.   On 29 April 2010 police visited the address because of issues with the monitoring.   As a result of what occurred it became apparent that both men had been consuming alcohol.   This is the fifth breach for Mr E P   and the fourth breach for Mr S P  .

[2]      The history of breaches is fully traversed in a judgment of Asher J issued on

30 October 2009.    In  that  judgment  his  Honour  declined  bail  to  both  persons. However, subsequent to that they were readmitted to bail because of the availability

of electronic monitoring.

R V PURCELL AND ANOR HC AK CRI 2008-092-007177  3 May 2010

[3]      Both counsel have spoken well and responsibly on their client’s behalf.  They have emphasised the point that there has been considerable time since a breach, and the amount of alcohol involved was not great.  It was apparently brought to the house by a relative who then offered it to them.

[4]      In my view the reasoning of Asher J in his decision of 30 October is, with respect, compelling.   One now has a situation of yet another breach for the same thing.   For the reasons discussed by Asher J, the issue is not simply the fact of a breach, repeated as it is, but the concerns are over the link between alcohol and offending.  Balancing all these factors I consider it is not appropriate to renew bail. The system would be brought into disrepute if continual breaches were ignored, and in this case the risks posed by those breaches are unacceptable given the serious offending that these men face.

[5]      I am advised that the trial has been brought forward from its original date and is now to be heard in August.   It is unfortunate that persons who are otherwise considered suitable for bail have continually proved themselves unable to comply with the necessary conditions, but the responsibility is all theirs.

[6]      Bail is revoked and the accused are remanded in custody until trial.

Solicitors:

A McClintock, Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Shortland Street, Auckland, email:  alysha[email protected]

I Jayanandan, Barrister, Auckland

P Le’Au’Anae, Barrister, Auckland, email: [email protected]

Simon  France J