T v Police HC Christchurch Cri-2007-409-70

[2007] NZHC 210

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2007-409-000070

T

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         28 March 2007

Counsel:         S G Bailey for Appellant

P J Shamy and S L L Litt for Respondent

Judgment:      28 March 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]      This is an appeal against refusal of bail in the District Court.  It is alleged that on 7 February the appellant broke and entered a house which was occupied at the time.  Indeed, that he entered the bedroom occupied by a female who was awakened as a result of his entry into the property.  The police were called and the appellant was located a short distance away, apparently concealed in scrub.

[2]      Mr T   is aged 29 years.   He has a very extensive list of previous convictions which runs to 11 pages.  A substantial number are for drug offences and

offences of dishonesty, but another signal feature of the list is the number of times

T V NZ POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2007-409-000070  28 March 2007

which  he  has  breached  bail  conditions,  including  failing  to  answer  bail  when required for the purposes of a court appearance.

[3]      Judge Abbott, in dealing with the matter the morning after Mr T  ’s apprehension, said that bail was refused for the following reasons:

Firstly, the charge is a serious charge.

Secondly, on the basis of the information which is available, it appears that there is a strong prima facie case.

Thirdly,  you  have  an  appalling  record  of  non-compliance  with  bail obligations.

Fourthly, the onus in section 12(4) and section 12(5) of the Bail Act is not satisfied.

[4]      Ms Bailey in support of the appeal has referred to various matters.   These include that the case is due for a summary hearing in the District Court on 31 May when, it seems, a defence of duress is to be run.  I assume it follows that the entry into the house and the appellant’s identification in that regard is no longer in dispute.

[5]      Counsel acknowledge the difficulty which the appellant’s record raised in arguing this appeal but pointed out that despite the length of the appellant’s list, violence does not loom large in it and nor do offences of a serious property nature, there being only two previous convictions for burglary.

[6]      Having considered everything that Ms Bailey has said, I am afraid I am unpersuaded that the Judge erred.  The case impresses me as one where even without regard to the onus cast by s12, Mr T   had a fairly slight hand in terms of the likelihood of obtaining bail.  The strength of the case, and his failure to answer bail on so many previous occasions, suggests to me that the outcome of the bail application was effectively preordained.   So is the outcome of this appeal.   It is

dismissed.

Solicitors:

FS Legal, Christchurch for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent