v v Police HC Christchurch Cri-2007-409-167

[2007] NZHC 799

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2007-409-000167

V

Appellant

v

POLICE

Hearing:         16 August 2007

Appearances: P Norcross for Appellant

S Poore for Crown

Judgment:      16 August 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE JOHN HANSEN

[1]      V   faces five charges of using a document and one of obtaining by deception.  He was refused bail in the District Court.  He appeals against that refusal.

[2]      The charges laid relate to sums of money in excess of $70,000.  The appellant is a foreign national.  His visitor’s permit has been revoked.  His appeal against that has been unsuccessful.   He is therefore at the moment, subject to the disposal of these criminal charges, illegally within the country.   As I understand it, that also means that  he is not  entitled  to  work, and  there is no  indication  in  any of the

information before the Court that he has any funds upon which he can live.

V V POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2007-409-000167  16 August 2007

[3]      The appeal is advanced on the grounds that the Judge has reached wrong conclusions in determining the matters under s8 of the Bail Act.  Firstly it is argued that there is no risk the defendant may fail to appear in Court, given that the police have his passport.  Secondly, the statement by the police in their grounds opposing bail, that there is a possibility of interference with witnesses is taken issue with. Thirdly, it is said that there is nothing to indicate he is likely to offend on bail, and that he has only one previous dishonesty offence, just before his arrest on this case.

[4]      In relation to  the discretionary matters under  subs  2,  it  is  Mr  Norcross’

submission that they too are all in favour of the appellant.

[5]      The  reality  in  this  case  is  that  this  man  has  been  charged  with  serious dishonesty offences.   He is illegally in the country, as I have already noted.   He indicates no means of possibly supporting himself.  It is suggested that he has a place to be bailed to: the only information he has provided to the Court is that it is a woman who lives at a house, and her name is Rana.   That, as he must realise, is completely insufficient to put forward as a conditional place of residence on bail.

[6]      There is also credible information put forward by the police relating to his activities towards associates, both business and personal.   He has been trespassed from four addresses.  The police state that when he was released from Court on 26

July, one of his first actions was to threaten associates about assisting the police. One of the complainants in this case expressed concerns for her safety.  She is aged

70.   She has already been approached by persons attempting to influence her into withdrawing the charges.

[7]      There is also the fact that there is at least one previous dishonesty conviction in his home country of Malta.

[8] This is an appeal against an exercise of a discretion, exercised by Judge Erber. In terms of R v Blackie (1999) 17 CRNZ 122,   it is necessary for the appellant to show that the Judge has proceeded on some wrong principle, has failed to consider relevant material, has taken into account irrelevant material, or is plainly wrong.  In my view none of those matters apply when one stands back and looks at this matter

pragmatically and realistically overall.  All of the matters in terms of s8(1) give real cause for concern.   The Judge has not been shown to be wrong.   The appeal is dismissed.  The appellant will continue to be remanded in custody.

Solicitors:

P Norcross, Christchurch

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch