Williams v The Queen
[2012] NZCA 304
•12 July 2012
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA190/2012 [2012] NZCA 304 |
| BETWEEN JAMES LEONARD WILLIAMS |
| AND THE QUEEN |
| Counsel: Applicant in Person |
| Judgment: 12 July 2012 at 2.15 pm |
JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J
The application for bail is dismissed.
REASONS
On 22 March 2012 the applicant, James Williams, was convicted and sentenced to a total of nine years and six months imprisonment by Allan J in the High Court in Hamilton after being found guilty at a trial on two counts of blackmail, one count of threatening to kill and one count of rape.[1]
[1] R v Williams [2012] NZHC 506.
Mr Williams has appealed to this Court against his conviction and sentence, and applied for bail pending determination of his appeal pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000. I have considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.
Section 14(1) of the Bail Act provides that bail is not to be granted pending determination of an appeal unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in this particular case; s 14(2) places the onus on Mr Williams to show cause why bail should be granted.
Mr Williams has applied for bail personally even though an interim grant of legal aid has been made in favour of counsel. Mr Williams’ application is made in a brief letter. His primary ground appears to be that his partner and two girls are struggling in his absence from the Waikato, particularly as he has been transferred to Rimutaka Prison in Upper Hutt. He wishes to marry his partner as soon as possible; and if he is granted bail he will satisfy any conditions which might be imposed. He also reports his assigned counsel’s confidence that his appeal will succeed on various grounds.
By reference to s 14(3)(a) of the Bail Act, Ms Cleary for the Crown submits that none of the grounds of appeal are sufficiently compelling to displace the statutory presumption against bail. By reference to s 14(3)(b) and (c), she refers to the length of the sentence and submits that Mr Williams’ rights will not be negated by any delays in hearing his appeal.
In my judgment Mr Williams has failed to discharge the statutory onus. A hearsay and unsubstantiated account of his counsel’s alleged advice about the merits falls well short of establishing that on the balance of probabilities the interests of justice require his release on bail. While it is not this Court’s function to form a view on the merits when dealing with a bail application, something more is required than a bald expression of confidence that an appeal will succeed. The fact that Mr Williams wishes to marry his partner is not a relevant consideration.
Mr Williams’ application for bail pending determination of his appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
0