S v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2007 409 81

[2007] NZHC 330

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2007 409 000081

S

Appellant

v

THE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         18 April 2007

Appearances: P D Watts for Appellant

K Butchard for Respondent

Judgment:      18 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE JOHN HANSEN

The appeal is dismissed

[1]      On 5 April last the appellant pleaded guilty to three charges of theft from a motor vehicle, and one charge of unlawful interference with a motor vehicle.   He was remanded in custody for sentence until 16 April.  At that date the pre-sentence report was unavailable, and he was further remanded in custody until 30 April 2007. He appeals against the refusal of the learned District Court Judge to grant him bail

during the 14 day period until he is sentenced.

S V THE POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2007 409 000081  18 April 2007

[2]      In December of last year the appellant used a set of keys to enter a vehicle and stole items to the value of $1,500.  He approached another vehicle and interfered with the ignition.  He moved this vehicle down the road, removed a battery from the boot, a Sony car stereo CD player, and a hand held scanner.   He entered a third vehicle and stole nothing of consequence.

[3]      The appellant is aged 21 years and has previous convictions for similar offending.  It also appears that four of the previous offences of a similar nature were committed while he was on bail.

[4]      The  learned  District  Court  Judge  took  the  view  that  a  sentence  of imprisonment was likely, accepting that the onus was on the appellant to satisfy the Court that it was appropriate in the interests of justice to grant bail.

[5]      It is argued on the appellant’s behalf that there are drug and alcohol issues, and it may well be that Community Corrections recommend a course other than imprisonment;  that imprisonment is not inevitable; that he has not been in prison previously; he is young; that he is mixing with more serious criminals because of overcrowding at the remand wing at the Christchurch Men’s Prison; that he possibly has a job to return to as a concrete worker; and that his co-offender pleaded guilty to three of the charges, and she was remanded on bail, notwithstanding she had two previous dishonesty convictions for receiving.

[6]      On the other hand, the Crown notes that s 13 of the Bail Act 2000 requires the applicant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, it is appropriate in the interests of justice that bail be granted.   It was submitted that there was nothing wrong in principle in the learned District Court Judge’s decision.  The facts of the case are pointed to, as well as the fact the appellant was serving a sentence of community work at the time he committed these offences.   A further aggravating factor was his previous criminal convictions, seven for dishonesty, including five for this type of offending.  While the Crown accept that imprisonment is not inevitable. Ms Butchard submitted that it is likely, given the appellant’s failure to comply with the earlier non-custodial sentence.

[7]      In my view, the appellant has failed to satisfy the Court it would be in the interests of justice to grant him bail.   He is a person who has not responded to community based sentences for similar offending.  He has offended in a similar way while on bail in the past.   The Judge has considered, in my view, the relevant matters, not taken into account irrelevant matters, and the appellant has not shown the decision was plainly wrong.  There is no inconsistency with the co-offender who has less previous offences and was not serving a community based sentence at the time.

[8]      For those reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors

P D Watts, Rangiora for Appellant

Crown Law, Christchurch for Respondent