W v Police CRI-2010-485-38 HC Wellington

[2010] NZHC 602

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-485-38

W

Applicant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         1 April 2010

Counsel:         K I Jefferies for Applicant

G A Kelly for Respondent

Judgment:      1 April 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

[1]      This application for bail was heard on the first day of the Easter vacation, Thursday, 1 April 2010.   Following the hearing I delivered an oral judgment. Unfortunately, that was not recorded.   Counsel have kindly supplied their notes. This judgment reflects as closely as I am able the judgment actually delivered.

[2]      This in an application for bail.  The accused is charged with a drug dealing charge.  Because he has previous convictions for such an offence bail may only be

granted in this Court.

W V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2010-485-38  1 April 2010

[3]      The applicant was arrested in July 2009.   No application for bail was then made.  An opposition to bail form was completed but this is now largely historic. The inquiries referred to in that opposition have now been made and there is no longer a risk of interference with witnesses or evidence.   The primary basis of opposition is the risk of offending whilst on bail.

[4]      I do not consider that that risk is sufficient to provide just cause for continued detention.   The previous convictions of particular concern are two convictions for possession of methamphetamine for supply.  One of those was committed while on bail.  Those convictions are now historic.  Counsel submits that the evidence against the accused is not strong, that the accused is mindful of the prospect of successfully defending the charges, and he will not compromise his position by incurring further charges.  I consider that that would indeed be a substantial discouragement to futher offending while on bail.

[5]      An address is proposed in the application, but no reply has been received by counsel for the respondent to a request she has made to Police to check the suitability of that address.  Strenuous efforts should be made to confirm an appropriate address, bearing in mind the Easter vacation.

[6]      Bail is accordingly granted on the following conditions:

(1)      That the accused reside at an address approved by Police;

(2)That he abide by a curfew at that address between the hours of 9pm and 7am;

(3)      That he present himself at the door during those hours if checked by

Police;  and

(4)      That he does not associate with the co-accused Deborah Hospoda.

“A D MacKenzie J”

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitors, Wellington for the Respondent

Jefferies Raizis, Wellington for Applicant