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

[2010] NZHC 637

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:         23 April 2010

Appearances: K I Jefferies for Applicant

J M Webber for Respondent

Judgment:      23 April 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

[1]      On 1 April, the first day of the Easter vacation, I granted an application by the applicant for bail on certain terms.  One of those terms was that the accused was to reside at an address approved by Police.   The reason for the imposition of that condition was that at the time of the hearing counsel, then appearing for the respondent, had not received a report from Police as to the suitability of the proposed address and it was anticipated that that would need to be checked.   The condition made provision for that.

[2]      There is opposition by the Police to the proposed address.  The proposal is that the accused should reside at a property at 7A Sunlight Grove, Kenepuru.  That is

W V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2010-485-38  23 April 2010

apparently a workshop or commercial unit with the residential unit attached.   It is proposed that the accused would rent the residential unit from the lessee of the unit, a Mr Vandewiel.  Mr Vandewiel has filed an affidavit.  He indicates that the Police did not actually enter the premises to check them but asked some questions about them. Mr Vandewiel says that his brother had previously been a tenant of the premises on community  detention  and  the  property  had  been  approved  for  that  purpose. Mr Vandewiel deposes that he has a conviction last year for male assault female and another assault conviction in 2001.  All other convictions were over 20 years ago. He does not sell or consume illicit drugs. He had a cannabis conviction some 20 years ago.  He says that the premise has due and independent access to the business and residential sections of the building.  The accused can access the residential unit without interfering with, or entering, the business section of the premises.

[3]      Mr Webber, for the respondent, indicates that the concerns are of a general rather than specific nature, that this is an industrial area not well lit and not greatly occupied at weekends and at night.

[4]      In the circumstances I consider that while the premises are not ideal, the objections which are made are not such that the address should be refused.   It is apparent that non-approval of the address would have the effect of depriving the accused of the bail which I have held should be granted, subject to appropriate conditions.

[5]      In the circumstances the conditions of bail are varied to provide that the accused is to reside at 7A Sunlight Grove, Kenepuru.   In all other respects the

conditions remain in force.

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitors, Wellington for the Respondent

Jefferies Raizis, Wellington for Applicant

“A D MacKenzie J”