Rippin v The Queen - [2014] NZCA 62

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA94/2014
[2014] NZCA 62

BETWEEN	PATRICK EUAN RIPPIN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel:

D W Grove for Appellant
G H Vear for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

13 March 2014 at 10.15 am

JUDGMENT OF STEVENS J

The application for bail and for suspension of the sentence of house detention is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The appellant was convicted following trial by Judge alone of concealing property to the value of $500 or more,[1] namely $277,709.22 from the Official Assignee.[2] He was sentenced to five months home detention.[3] He has appealed against sentence. Pending determination of his appeal, Mr Rippin has applied for bail and a suspension of the sentence of home detention under s 55 of the Bail Act 2000.[4] The application is opposed.
[1]R v Rippin DC Auckland CRI-2012-004-005351, 6 November 2013.
[2]Insolvency Act 2006, s 420(2)(a), the maximum penalty for which is three years imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $10,000.00.
[3]R v Rippin DC Auckland CRI-2012-004-005351, 26 February 2014.
[4]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 403A pursuant to the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Act 2013.
This Court considered in Din v R the relevant law to an application of this kind.[5] Exercising the power given to a single judge of this Court, I have personally considered the application.[6]
[5]Din v R [2013] NZCA 610 at [6]–[13].
[6]Criminal Procedure Act, s 333(2)(d).
An application under s 55 is governed by s 14 of the Bail Act.[7] Section 14 generally creates a presumption against a grant of bail pending appeal.[8] The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that it is in the interests of justice that bail be granted.[9] When considering the interests of justice the Court may take into account the considerations set out in s 14(3). The well known authorities of this Court confirm that admission to bail pending appeal is unusual and only to be granted in exceptional circumstances.[10]

Appellant’s submissions

[7]Din v R, above n 5, at [17]; Harris v R [2013] NZCA 611 at [11].

[8]Harris v R, above n 7, at [12].

[9]Bail Act 2000, s 14(2).

[10]Ellis v R [1998] 3 NZLR 555 (CA) at 560; Iti v R [2012] NZCA 307 at [7].

The application is supported by two memoranda from counsel and an affidavit dated 13 December 2013 from Dr McCartie, who has treated the appellant for around 12 and a half years. Dr McCartie has also provided an updating letter of 28 February 2014 in which he said this:
Further to my letter of 26 February 2014, I am again writing in the capacity of Patrick’s family doctor. This letter is to provide an update regarding Patrick’s mental health condition. I assessed him in person on the afternoon of 27 February 2014. He was markedly distressed, shaking and crying. He had ongoing suicidal thoughts. He was unable to reassure me that he was not planning…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rippin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rippin v The Queen [2014] NZCA 62
Case: [2014] NZCA 62
Decision Date: 13 March 2014 at 10.15 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patrick Euan Rippin has appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. He was convicted by a Judge alone of concealing property to the value of $500 or more from the Official Assignee and was sentenced to five months of home detention. Pending the determination of his appeal, Rippin has applied for bail and a suspension of his home detention sentence under section 55 of the Bail Act 2000. The application is opposed by the Crown. The primary issue before the Court is whether it is in the interests of justice to grant bail and suspend the sentence of home detention. The Court must consider the strength of the grounds of appeal, Rippin's mental health condition, and the time before the appeal is heard.

Rippin argues that the apparent strength of the grounds of appeal and his mental health condition suggest that it is in the interests of justice to grant bail and suspend the sentence of home detention. However, the Court finds that there is no challenge to the starting point of the sentence and no error of principle or law, suggesting that the appeal may not be strong. Moreover, the Court finds that Rippin has good support in the community and that his mental health condition can be managed through the normal channels as part of the sentence of home detention. The Court also finds that a relatively short period will lapse before the appeal is heard.

The Court declines the application for bail and suspension of the sentence of home detention. The Court is not satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances. The Court finds that neither the apparent strength of the grounds of appeal, nor the personal circumstances associated with the appellant's mental health, nor the time before the appeal can be heard, suggest that it is in the interests of justice that bail should be granted and the sentence of home detention suspended. The Court declines the application for bail and suspension of home detention.

Orders