Williams v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA190/2012
[2012] NZCA 304

BETWEEN JAMES LEONARD WILLIAMS
Applicant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Counsel: Applicant in Person
F Cleary for Respondent

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by James Leonard Williams against his conviction and sentence for blackmail, threatening to kill, and rape. The appellant sought bail pending the determination of his appeal. The matter was presided over by Justice Harrison. The appeal was made against the decision of the High Court in Hamilton, where Mr Williams was convicted and sentenced to a total of nine years and six months imprisonment. The appellant applied for bail under section 70 of the Bail Act 2000, which the Court considered under section 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961. The primary argument in support of bail was the appellant's assertion that his family was struggling in his absence and that he wished to marry his partner. Additionally, the appellant referred to his counsel's confidence in the success of his appeal. The Crown argued that the grounds of appeal were not compelling enough to warrant bail, and that the length of the sentence did not negate the statutory presumption against bail.

The Court was required to determine whether the appellant had discharged the onus of showing cause why bail should be granted, as per section 14(2) of the Bail Act. The Court needed to consider if it was in the interests of justice to grant bail pending the determination of the appeal, as per section 14(1) of the Bail Act. The Court had to weigh the statutory presumption against bail against the appellant's arguments in favour of release. The Court also needed to assess the significance of the appellant's counsel's alleged advice about the merits of the appeal and the appellant's personal circumstances, such as his intention to marry his partner.

Justice Harrison found that the appellant had not discharged the onus of showing cause why bail should be granted. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel's confidence in the success of the appeal, while persuasive, did not constitute sufficient evidence to establish that the interests of justice required his release on bail. The Court further held that the appellant's personal circumstances, such as his intention to marry his partner, were not relevant considerations in the bail decision. The Court dismissed the appellant's application for bail pending the determination of his appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established