S v Police HC Auckland CRI 2010-404-104

[2010] NZHC 832

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2010-404-104

S

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing:         30 April 2010

Counsel:         V Heather for Appellant

A McClintock for Respondent

Judgment:      30 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      Ms S   appeals the refusal to give her bail.   She is 18 years old so the presumption in favour of bail applies.   The District Court was aware of this but concluded that Ms S  ’s propensity for continual offending left it with no option. Ms S    has  since  pleaded  guilty  to  all  charges  and  will  be  sentenced  on

2 June 2010 to burglary, assault, receiving, taking a car, getting into a car, drink driving, and failing to apply.

Present charges

[2]      The most recent offending was a grouping of burglary, taking a vehicle and breath alcohol.  During the day Ms S   entered into the victim’s house, and stole

S V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI 2010-404-104  30 April 2010

car keys.  She was seen on the property by the victim who was unaware of the theft. They spoke and she left.   The next day she returned and stole the car.   She was stopped while driving, and blew positive.

[3]      Ms S   has four youth court matters for burglary and one for taking a car. She has a District Court conviction for getting into a car.  All matters have resulted in sentences of supervision.

[4]      The s 15 presumption in favour of bail applies.  The primary Crown concern is failure to appear.  She has pleaded guilty to one non-appearance charge.  On other occasions warrants have been necessary.   I note also the latest offending was committed while on bail.

[5]      There is uncertainty over the suitability of the bail address as it is the address to which she was originally bailed.   The police advise there have been on-going problems with the address and ascertaining who lives there.

[6]      I consider the recent history, including non-appearance, tells against a grant of bail.   If electronic monitoring were available it could amount to a change in circumstances founding a fresh application.

[7]      This is an appeal from an exercise of discretion.  The Judge referred to s 15 of the Act.   She made no error.   In the absence of the assurance offered by an

electronic monitoring option, the appeal must be dismissed.

Solicitors:

V Heather, Barrister, PO Box 59 160, Mangere Bridge, Auckland,

email:  [email protected]

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

Simon France J