Tuira v The Queen

[2015] NZCA 291

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA345/2015
[2015] NZCA 291

BETWEEN	GAVIN JOHN TUIRA Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel:

Applicant in Person
M Wong for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

9 July 2015 at 11 am

BAIL JUDGMENT OF WILD J

The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Mr Tuira applies for bail pending the determination of an appeal against conviction and sentence which he filed on 18 June 2015. 

2. Mr Tuira was sentenced to preventive detention by Faire J in the High Court at Hamilton on 10 March 2015 after he pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent, aggravated burglary, assault with a weapon and indecent assault.

3. Mr Tuira’s notice of appeal indicates that he is not legally represented and does not intend to apply for legal aid.

4. In his somewhat immoderate handwritten application, Mr Tuira indicates he seeks bail so he “can seek advice how to go about charging the Police The Courts and all who represented me after I dismissed them for cheating me off my freedom …”.

5. The application for bail pending appeal is declined.  Briefly, my reasons are:

   (a)The appeal lacks merit.  The grounds of appeal against conviction appear to be an allegation that the police, courts, his lawyers and the prosecution conspired to have him falsely charged.  No grounds for the appeal against sentence are discernible:  s 14(3)(a) Bail Act 2000.

   (b)No hearing date for the appeal has yet been fixed.  But, given that Mr Tuira is serving a sentence of preventive detention, the likely delay to the hearing of the appeal will not render it nugatory:  ss 14(3)(b) and (c).

   (c)As already mentioned, Mr Tuira wants bail so he can take advice about suing those he holds responsible for his incarceration.  As to seeking advice, I note Mr Tuira chose to represent himself when he was sentenced.  Faire J’s sentencing remarks record Mr Tuira dispensing with the services of two successive counsel after he had entered his pleas of guilty, during what was obviously a rather protracted sentencing procedure.  That is not a proper ground for the grant of bail.  Further, the two psychological assessment reports provided to Faire J upon sentencing both assessed Mr Tuira as at high risk of sexual or violent reoffending if released into the community:  s 14(3)(d).

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent