The Queen v Veza - [2007] NZCA 409

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA306/07
[2007] NZCA 409
THE QUEEN
v
MARTIN ROYCE VEZA
Hearing:12 September 2007 (by telephone)
Counsel:M S Gibson for Appellant

M F Laracy for Crown

Judgment:12 September 2007 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF O’REGAN J

AThe application for bail is allowed. The appellant is released on bail for the period until this Court delivers judgment on his appeal, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He is to reside at 5 Thompson Road, Pamapuria RD2 Kaitaia.
(ii)He is to be present at that address from 8 pm to 7 am daily, and to present at the door if requested to do so by the police.

BThe position that will apply after delivery of judgment will be addressed in the Court’s judgment.

REASONS
[1]       The appellant was convicted of supplying methamphetamine and sentenced to two years imprisonment.
[2]       The appellant has appealed to this Court against his conviction and that appeal is due to be heard next week. In its submissions for the appeal, the Crown accepts that evidence of text messages which is now available but was not known to the appellant or his then counsel at trial would have been likely to have influenced the jury’s assessment to a considerable degree. Crown counsel submits that the appeal “will be difficult to resist on this ground”.
[3]       Having received those submissions, counsel for the appellant has applied for bail on behalf of the appellant, pending the determination of his appeal, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000. I personally have considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.
[4]       The test to be applied in relation to the application is that set out in s 14 of the Bail Act. Under s 14(1), bail is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so. Section 14(2) provides that the onus is on the appellant to show cause why bail should be granted.
[5]       Section 14(3) sets out the matters which the Court may take into account in considering an application in these circumstances, instead of the matters dealt with in s 8. These matters are:
(a)The apparent strength of the grounds of appeal: in light of the Crown’s submissions, there are clearly very strong grounds for the appeal.
(b)The length of sentence imposed on the appellant: in this case the sentence is two years imprisonment, of which the appellant has served about four months.
(c)The length of time that will pass before the appeal is heard: the appeal will be heard in a week or so, but it seems that there is a strong chance it will be allowed, so that bail is being sought effectively in anticipation of the granting of the appeal.
(d)Personal circumstances: there is no information available to me about the appellant’s personal circumstances, other than that, if released, he will be…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Queen v Veza

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Veza [2007] NZCA 409
Case: [2007] NZCA 409
Decision Date: 12 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal case of The Queen v Martin Royce Veza, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with deciding whether the appellant, who had been convicted of supplying methamphetamine and sentenced to two years imprisonment, should be granted bail pending the determination of his appeal. The appeal was due to be heard shortly and the Crown accepted that new evidence, which was unavailable at the time of the original trial, would likely have influenced the jury's assessment significantly. The appellant's counsel applied for bail under section 70 of the Bail Act 2000, arguing that the appellant should be released on bail given the strength of the appeal grounds.

The legal issues the Court had to resolve were whether the appellant met the onus of establishing that he should be released on bail, and if so, what conditions should be imposed on that bail. The Court considered the apparent strength of the grounds for the appeal, the length of the sentence, the time before the appeal was to be heard, and the appellant's personal circumstances. Given that the appeal was likely to be allowed, the Court found that the appellant had met the onus of establishing that he should be released on bail. The Crown did not oppose the granting of bail but sought a curfew condition, which the Court found appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court allowed the application for bail and ordered the appellant to be released on bail, subject to conditions that he reside at a specified address and be present at that address from 8 pm to 7 am daily, presenting at the door if requested by the police. The Court noted that all aspects of the bail terms could be revisited at the time of the hearing of the appeal if necessary.

Orders