Wichman v Police HC Auckland CRI 2010-404-146

[2010] NZHC 1264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-404-146

BETWEEN  TIMOTHY WICHMAN Appellant

ANDPOLICE Respondent

Hearing:         14 May 2010

Counsel:         Maggie M Winterstein for Appellant

Gareth Kayes for Respondent

Judgment:      14 May 2010   

[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF HUGH WILLIAMS J.

Leave to appeal out of time is granted.

Appeal against District Court Judge’s refusal to grant bail is dismissed.

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, PO Box 2213 Auckland 1140

Email:  [email protected]

Maggie M Winterstein, 613 Mt Albert Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023

Email:

Copy for:

District Court Judge Singh

Leroy[email protected]

TIMOTHY WICHMAN V POLICE HC AK CRI-2010-404-146  14 May 2010

[1]      This is an appeal against the refusal by Judge Singh on 25 March 2010 to grant the appellant bail pending his sentencing which is to take place on 27 May

2010.

[2]      The appeal is technically out of time but leave is granted to file it out of time. [3]      Judge Singh noted that on 25 March 2010 Mr Wichman had pleaded guilty to

assault with intent to injure and breach of a protection order.  Those offences were committed   on   his   partner   who,   according   to   Ms   Winterstein   counsel   for Mr Wichman, continues to support him and wishes the relationship to continue.

[4]      The Judge noted that s 12(1)(b) and s 13 of the Bail Act 2000 stood in

Mr Wichman’s way of granting bail.

[5]      He noted that the offending to which the pleas had been entered was whilst Mr Wichman was on parole for his sentence for previous offences.  He has a very lengthy list of previous offences for someone born only in 1982.  Indeed the Police Grounds for Opposing Bail Form says that he has previously received 29 sentences of imprisonment and accordingly the chances of his being sentenced to jail again must rate fairly high.

[6]      That notwithstanding, Ms Winterstein said her instructions were both to bring the appeal and to seek Home Detention when Mr Wichman comes to be sentenced in

14 days time.

[7]      There  is  no  basis  at  all  for  any conclusion  other  than  that  Judge  Singh correctly applied the statutory provisions to Mr Wichman’s position.  Mr Wichman committed moderately serious offences whilst on parole for the latest of a very large number of convictions he had previously.  He was simply remanded in custody, as is the usual thing when a person has been remanded for sentence.

[8]      Whether or not Ms Winterstein can persuade the District Court that the appropriate outcome on 27 May is home detention or something other than a term of imprisonment of course remains to be seen.

[9]      At the present there is no basis whatever for allowing the appeal and it is dismissed.

.................................................................

HUGH WILLIAMS J.

14 May 2010