The Queen v Paul James Page

[2000] NZCA 55

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA4/00

THE QUEEN

V

PAUL JAMES PAGE

Hearing:	18 May 2000
Coram:	Gault J Tipping J Doogue J
Appearances:	R M Lithgow for Applicant S P France for Crown
Reasons:	18 May 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DELIVERED BY GAULT J

1. Mr Page applied for bail pending the hearing of his appeal on 30 May 2000.

2. He was convicted of indecent assault and sentenced on 22 December 1999 to imprisonment for 12 months.

3. After conviction, it is necessary to show special reasons for the grant of bail pending appeal.  In this case Mr Lithgow put forward the following:

   1.          The applicant’s release date is in early June very soon after the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal so that he will derive little benefit from his appeal unless he is released.

   2.          He will be released without conditions in any event in early June.

   3.          The hearing of his appeal was adjourned in April at the request of Crown counsel.

   4.          His appeal has reasonable prospects of success and in particular the sentence appeal.

   5.          The circumstances of his confinement are such that continued imprisonment is particularly onerous. 

   6.          There is no risk of absconding.

4. The Crown opposes bail.  Reference was made to the opinion in the pre-sentence report that there is a high risk of re-offending.

5. No bail conditions were proposed though Mr Lithgow suggested the applicant could meet a residence condition and would expect to be prevented from communication with Crown witnesses.

6. We make no comment on the strength of the grounds of appeal.  We note, however, that those of greater potential weight go to process rather than lack of evidential basis for the verdict.

7. We recognise that there has been unacceptable delay in bringing to a hearing this appeal in which a comparatively short sentence is involved, but we do not accept that responsibility for this is to be attributed wholly to the Crown.  There is no indication of strenuous efforts on the part of the applicant to have the matter advanced to early determination.

8. Overall we are not convinced that grounds for bail after conviction have been made out so as to call for release at large, or on terms to be worked out, between now and the hearing of the appeal in 12 days time.

9. For these reasons the application was dismissed.

Solicitors

Crown Law Office, Wellington