T v Police HC Wellington CRI-2009-485-152

[2009] NZHC 2121

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2009-485-152

T

Applicant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         17 November 2009

Counsel:         S J Gill for applicant

M S Anderson for respondent

Judgment:      17 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1]      Mr T   now faces a total of 24 indictable charges including one of selling a class A controlled drug (methamphetamine), 18 of offering to supply that drug, two of conspiring to supply it and three of offering to supply cannabis.  In addition, he faces one indictable charge of receiving stolen property.

[2]      Mr T  ’s application for bail is accordingly one to which s 16 of the Bail Act  2000  applies,  so  that  only a  High  Court  Judge  can  grant  bail.    I take  the application of that section to give some additional emphasis to the consideration under s 8(1) of the Act as to the likelihood of Mr T   offending whilst on bail, and the relative seriousness to be attributed to such prospect.

[3]      Mr Gill worked hard to persuade me that the charges Mr T   faces should not be seen as all that serious, and that the strength of the Police case against him is

weak.  In addition, he raised the availability of a separate address in Wainuiomata,

T V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2009-485-152 17 November 2009

not tainted by the offending and where Mr T  ’s brother, whom Mr Gill describes as being without any gang connections, resides.

[4]      Further, Mr Gill raised concerns at the length of delay until trial, which is likely not to be possible until the middle of 2010.

[5]      At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that I was readily satisfied that the Police had discharged the onus on them to justify a continued remand in custody pending trial.

[6]      The charges were laid after the Police watched Mr T  ’s home address for a period, observing frequent visitors coming and going, with visitors often spending very short periods of time at the address.   Since apprehension, analysis of communications using a cell phone linked to Mr T   shows a significant number of exchanges that appear to relate to dealing in methamphetamine.  Although Mr Gill was inclined to argue that many of the texts were equivocal as to what was being referred to, enquiries such as “Hey bro got any white” appear likely to found a relatively strong case for the prosecution.

[7]      Police describe Mr T   as a senior patched member of the Mongrel Mob, and refer to his extensive criminal history.   Most recently his convictions include money laundering and conspiring to deal in cannabis (in 2003) and possession for supply  of  methamphetamine,  then  classified  as  a   class  B  drug  (in  2001). Statistically,   Mr T     has   36   convictions   for   offending   whilst   on   bail. Mr Anderson readily conceded that many of those offences were not serious, but some  of  them  did  involve  drug  dealing  and  they  demonstrate  a  propensity  to continue dealing in drugs whilst on bail.

[8]      Overall, Mr Anderson characterised the Police case as a strong one and, on one  analysis  undertaken  by the  Police,  the  quantities  referred  to  in  the  various communications amount to some eight grams of methamphetamine.

[9]      In addition, when apprehended Mr T   had $2,695 in cash.  Mr Gill was inclined  to  dismiss  that  as  not  a  significant  amount.     However,   I  accept

Mr Anderson’s points that when found in the possession of an unemployed man with no other visible  source  of  income,  it  must  be significant  and  consistent  with  a relatively serious level of drug dealing.

[10]     Accordingly,  the  Police  position  is  that,  if  convicted,  Mr T    faces  a substantial period of imprisonment, certainly going well beyond the likely period of remand.

[11]     The Police are not persuaded that the bail address offered  would inhibit Mr T  ’s ability to continue dealing in drugs.  The Police understanding of his activities suggests that he has wide links in the Wainuiomata community and appears to be able to deal drugs from any particular location within the area.  Although I did not analyse them in detail, I accept from Mr Anderson that the content of the cell phone taken from Mr T   demonstrates this ability.

[12]     Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is a real risk that Mr T   would continue to offend whilst on bail.  The importance I attribute to that, together with the seriousness of the charges he is facing, the relative strength of the evidence gathered so far, the seriousness of the punishment to which he would be liable and his past conduct, in particular offending whilst on bail, all contribute to a case in which there is more than ample cause for continued detention.

[13]     Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Gill & McAsey, Lower Hutt for applicant

Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington for respondent