R v W HC Auckland CRI 2007-404-189

[2007] NZHC 1116

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-404-000189

THE QUEEN

v

W

Hearing:         19 October 2007

Appearances: Ms Jelas for Crown

Mr Tait for accused

Judgment:      19 October 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

S Tait, Manukau

R V W HC AK CRI 2007-404-000189  19 October 2007

[1]      Mr W   was brought before me last Monday on a breach of his curfew condition.  He was not at the residential address to which he was bailed.  He was away from the address picking up his children.   During the course of discussions regarding the significance of that breach, it emerged that there was some uncertainty as to the continuation of the programme that Mr W   had been released on bail to enable him to attend.  That programme is designed to assist him in addressing his addiction problems.  Therefore this matter was adjourned to today’s date.

[2]      It is apparent from the information now before me that Mr W   no longer attends the rehabilitation programme, as it finished on 4 October 2007.  That fact has not been brought to the attention of the Court.  I do however have a report from the programme as to his general attendance.  He attended, but there was concern as to his attitude whilst attending, and also that at times he broke aspects of the curfew. His breaches of curfew were also not brought to the attention of the Court.

[3]      There is a proposal now that Mr W   attend the Salvation Army Bridge Programme which may well be a more suitable programme for him.  He is accepted and is due to start on the day part of the programme on 1 November 2007.  It was suggested that time he should reside at the address from which the That was Then, This is Now Charitable Trust operates.  An employee of that Trust was in Court.  He described the Trust as providing an address at which people who are the subject of strict bail conditions can reside whilst waiting to, or whilst attending various programmes. However, Ms Jelas for the Crown relays to me police concerns that the address is associated with the Headhunter gang.   Police believe it may be a headquarters of the gang.  Although it may well be that ultimately those concerns are not justified, it would not be an appropriate address for this Court to remand a person on bail who is facing drug and related charges.

[4]      Mr W   has proposed his partner’s home  as an alternative residential address.  The Police have no concerns regarding the suitability of that address.

[5]      After discussion with counsel I have reached the view that Mr W   should be bailed to his partner’s address and that he should be subject to a limited curfew.

Notwithstanding that Mr W   is no longer in the rehabilitation programme  I consider that bail should continue because of the possibility identified by Cooper J that a non-custodial sentence will ultimately be imposed upon him.

[6]      Ms Jelas for the Crown accepts that a 24 hour curfew is not necessary to address any concerns regarding the risk of offending whilst on bail.  Mr W   is due to come before this Court again on 30 October 2007 for sentence on the matters to which he has pleaded guilty to in this Court, and at that time, of necessary, issues of bail can be revisited.  I note that it may well be that sentencing cannot proceed on that date as Cooper J had previously adjourned sentencing to enable matters before the District Court to be resolved.

[7]      I record the Crown’s concern that when this matter was called before me last week the impression was given that Mr W   continued attending at the Ruakura Trust, but that was not the case.   I also note the Crown’s concern regarding the breach of bail.   However, given the fact that Mr W   has shown sufficient motivation to organise for himself involvement in the Bridge Programme and since his partner is prepared to provide him with support by allowing him to reside at her address.  I consider it appropriate that his bail continue, on the following conditions:

1.  He reside at 104 Palmers Road, Manurewa

2.  He is subject to a curfew between 10 pm and 6.00 am daily.   During the hours of his curfew he is to present himself at the door if required to do so.

3.  He is to report Monday, Thursday and Saturday at the

Manukau Police Station.

[8]      I ask that the Crown book be noted with the breach of bail.

Winkelmann J