Taranaki Regional Council v Legaspi

[2014] NZHC 1403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-043-1064 [2014] NZHC 1403

BETWEEN

TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL

Prosecutor

AND

ROLANDO VALMEO LEGASPI ROMELITO CENTINO DE ASIS MARK ALDRIN A GALAPO

TRI-VIEW SHIPPING PRIVATE LTD

and

FAIRMONT SHIPPING (CANADA) LTD Defendants

Hearing:	20 June 2014 (by audio-visual link)
Counsel:	A W M Britton for Prosecutor A R Laurenson for Defendants
Judgment:	20 June 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

C & M Legal, New Plymouth Govett Quilliam, New Plymouth Counsel:

K de Silva, Auckland

TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL v  LEGASPI [2014] NZHC 1403 [20 June 2014]

[1]      The five defendants have been charged with offences under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act).  They arise out of an incident where a vessel, MV Lake Tri-View, ran onto the Waiwhakaiho Reef, off the shore of Taranaki.   The problem appears to have arisen from a dragging anchor.  The inability of responsible crew members to respond to that hazard is said to have led to the running aground on the reef in close proximity to that.

[2]      Those charged are Mr Lagaspi, Mr De Asis, Mr Galapo, Tri-View Shipping Private Ltd and Fairmont Shipping (Canada) Ltd.  Mr Lagaspi is the Master of the vessel.  He has been in command since 1980.  Mr De Asis is the Chief Officer of the ship.  Mr Galapo was the Watchkeeper, Look-out and Helmsman at the time of the grounding.  Tri-View Shipping is the owner of the vessel.  Fairmont Shipping is its operator.

[3]      The charges that have been brought under the Resource Management Act have been remanded through to 10 July 2014 in the District Court at New Plymouth. The reason why a bail application is made in this Court is because the prosecutor, Taranaki Regional Council, seeks a surety as a term of bail.  The District Court has no jurisdiction to impose bail including a suretyship.1  This Court may do so.2

[4]      The vessel is due to leave New Zealand waters this evening.  It is necessary for the three crew who have been charged to be on the vessel at that time.  They are crucial  to its operation.   The Council has  no  objection to those  crew members departing the jurisdiction as long as a surety arrangement is put in place as an earnest for them to return to New Zealand.  That is why suretyship is sought in relation to the three individual defendants.

[5]      Mr Laurenson, for the defendants, advises me that a New Zealand based agent of the owner and operator, Phoenix Shipping Agencies Ltd, is in a position to post a bank bond of $150,000 before the vessel leaves New Zealand this evening.  I

am prepared to grant bail to the three individual defendants on the provision of a

1      Bail Act 2000, s 30(5).

2      Ibid, s 30(6).

signed bank guarantee in that sum, by 4pm today.   That bond shall be to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

[6]      In  the  meantime,  the  three  individual  defendants  can  remain  at  large. However, if the bank bond is not deposited by 4pm today, an alternative order will come into play, namely one that they each surrender their passport to the Registrar no later than 5pm today.  As I have indicated, that order will only take effect if the promised bank bond is not provided by the stipulated time. Assuming the bank bond is provided there is no impediment to the vessel leaving Port Taranaki this evening.

[7]      The bail order shall enure until disposition of the charges in the District

Court, or any earlier variation order made by this Court.

P R Heath J