Smaill v Police HC Dunedin CRI 2010-412-16

[2010] NZHC 1029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2009-069-2003

IN THE MATTER OF     an application for bail pursuant to the Bail

Act 2000

BETWEEN  EARL STRATHAM CAMPBELL Applicant

ANDQUEEN Respondent

Hearing:         11 June 2010

Counsel:         AJS Snell for Applicant

C R Walker for Respondent

Judgment:      11 June 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1]      Mr Earl Campbell moves for bail offering an address in Auckland and bail conditions including non-association and a curfew, and remaining out of Hawke’s Bay.   His mother who is in Court today has also offered a surety in the sum of

$30,000.

[2]      Mr Campbell faces particularly serious charges that fall into two groups.  The first involves a highly organised and disciplined armed robbery of an Armourguard van containing some $156,000 in cash.   The second involved his former partner against whom it is said he offended because he thought she was an informer.  She said that he threatened to kill her and kidnapped her, and I am told that the Crown now wishes to lay charges of sexual violation.

[3]      Mr Campbell has extensive and relevant previous convictions.  They include unlawful possession of a pistol, possession of an offensive weapon, a number of

EARL STRATHAM CAMPBELL V R HC NAP CRI 2009-069-2003  11 June 2010

convictions for escaping custody, or failing to answer bail, and as Mr Snell points out, a few relatively minor convictions for violence.

[4]      The Crown says there is a compelling case in relation to both sets of charges. On the armed robbery a co-offender has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced.  As far as the second set is concerned, the police were intercepting communications at the time, and those communications are cogent evidence of the kidnapping and threat to her life.  It is said that Mr Campbell has succeeded in contacting her by letter from prison, expressing his devotion to her, and the Crown also alleges, although this is vigorously denied, that associates of Mr Campbell have visited another witness.

[5]      Section 12(1)(b) of the Bail Act applies, and the onus is on Mr Campbell to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that he will not, while on bail, commit any offence involving violence against or danger to the safety of any other person.  In deciding whether or not to grant bail, the need to protect the safety of the public and where appropriate, the need to protect the safety of a victim, is a primary consideration.

[6]      I recognise that an Auckland address is offered and a surety, and I also acknowledge that there are some medical reasons why it would be convenient to Mr Campbell to be on bail.  But by some considerable margin the application fails to persuade me of the matters referred to in s 12(1)(b).

[7]      The application is dismissed.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Napier