S v Police HC Wellington CRI 2009-485-156

[2009] NZHC 2243

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2009-485-156

S

Applicant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         15 December 2009

Counsel:         S L Baigent for Applicant

J M Webber for Respondent

Judgment:      15 December 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Bail application)

[1]      This  is  an  application  by  Mr S    for  electronically  monitored  bail. Mr S   currently faces serious charges selling methamphetamine; manufacturing methamphetamine; possession of methamphetamine; possession of pre-cursors and possession of equipment.   The two first charges carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2]      His bail application is before this Court because Mr S   has a previous conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine in 2003 when he was imprisoned.

S V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2009-485-156  15 December 2009

[3]      Ms Baigent tells me today that the essence of the application is that he wishes to be present at the shortly expected birth of his and his partner’s first child in early January 2010.

[4]      Firstly, the application falls to be determined under s 8 of the Bail Act 2000. Secondly, I assess, broadly speaking, the strength of the prosecution case against Mr S   as high.  Mr S   has effectively been caught in possession of drugs.  In addition he has made, as I understand it, admissions which are likely to make him culpable at least of some but perhaps not all of the offences he currently faces.  If convicted of the serious offences he inevitably will be sentenced to a very long period of imprisonment.

[5]      As to his background he does have a long list of previous convictions.  I have already identified one drug offence but there are other drug offences in addition for which he has been imprisoned including cannabis, anabolic steroids and the like. Further, he has a bad history of offending while on bail, some fifteen convictions. Next he has a very bad history of failing to obey Court orders.  His failure to do so goes back many years to the mid 90’s.   It includes his refusal to give name and address to the police through to failures to answer bail, giving false identity, driving when the Court has disqualified him.  More recently he has a series of convictions for failure, again, to answer bail, false addresses, driving while disqualified.  Most recently he was convicted in July of this year of failing to answer bail.   He has already breached other Court orders including community work and prison release conditions.  He has also, as I have said, failed to answer District Court bail.

[6]      It can be seen by that that Mr S   is a high risk of both reoffending while on bail and of failing to obey Court orders and thus a risk of failing to appear at Court.

[7]      On the positive side for Mr S   he has together with his partner obtained a residence which is suitable in the sense that a electronic signal could be received there and there is certainly no reason to suppose, say for one matter, that his partner would be of concern.

[8]      There is some evidence that while his partner may mean well she was present living in a house where methamphetamine and related equipment was found.  There is certainly nothing to suggest even with her desire to do so that she could in any way influence Mr S  ’s conduct.

[9]      The  final  factor  that  is  relevant  to  Mr S    he  is  clearly  addicted  to methamphetamine which again will be a powerful incentive to continue to offend to continue to get the drug.   These factors all together illustrate it would not be appropriate to give open ended electronic bail to Mr S  .

[10]     What I am prepared to do, however, is this.   I understand his partner is anxious to have him at the birth of their child and he is also.  I would be prepared to grant him bail for no more than forty-eight hours, to attend the birth and the immediate period afterwards.  Of course I cannot bind any other Judge but there will be a duty Judge available, if necessary, for application by telephone for bail to be considered once his partner appears to be close to giving birth.  It may be possible to identify appropriate restrictions which will allow him to be present but will give reassurance  about  his  return.    I will  ensure  that  my remarks  to  brought  to  the attention of the duty Judges in January 2010 and late December 2009 so that they will know my view; that it would be reasonable to give him and his partner this limited opportunity.

[11]     For the reasons given the formal application is declined but subject to my observations about limited bail surrounding the birth of his child.

Solicitors:

Ronald Young J

J M Webber, Luke Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10357, Wellington, email: [email protected]

S L Baigent, Barrister, Wellington, email: [email protected]