R v P HC Auckland CRI-2010-092-3242

[2010] NZHC 2199

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-092-3242

THE QUEEN

v

P

Hearing:         7 December 2010

Appearances: J L S Shaw for the Crown

M Tuilotolava for the Accused

Judgment:      7 December 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitors, PO Box 2213, Auckland 1140

Ferguson Tuilotolava, PO Box 76616, Manukau 2241

R V P HC AK CRI-2010-092-3242  7 December 2010

[1]      Mr P   faces a number of charges of a serious nature.  He is 17 years old. Mr P  ’s bail history is set out in detail in the judgment of Venning J  dated

1 December 2010.  The upshot of that judgment was that Venning J considered he had  no  choice  but  to  revoke  Mr  P  ’s  bail  notwithstanding  his  age,  due  to Mr P  ’s repeated bail breaches and the consequential withdrawal of support for him by his aunt, whose house was Mr P  ’s bail address.

[2]      Venning J directed that if there was a further change in circumstances that might permit Mr P   to be readmitted to bail the matter should be brought on urgently.

[3]      Mr P  ’s aunt and his mother have now sworn an affidavit in which they evidence a joint and reinvigorated willingness to assist Mr P   to comply with his bail conditions.  Importantly Mr P  ’s aunt (Mrs Fa’anunu) is now prepared again to permit Mr P   to live at her address.  The support for her (Mrs Fa’anunu) that appears  previously  to  have  been  lacking  has  been  promised  by  Mrs  Tupou (Mr P  ’s mother).  Further support will be forthcoming from Pastor Kiria.

[4]      In  these  circumstances  the  Crown  agrees  that  the  concerns  underlying Venning J’s decision appear to have been addressed and on that basis I am prepared to order that Mr P   should be readmitted to bail on the previous conditions subject to the following change, namely that he is to be on a 24 hour curfew except when in the company of either Mrs Fa’Anunu, Mrs Tupou or Pastor Kiria.   I make orders accordingly.

[5]      As  Venning J  said  on  1  December,  however,  Mr  P    also  has  to  take responsibility for his actions.   If he does not do so the Court may well be placed

again in the position of having no choice but to remand him in custody.

Rebecca Ellis J