Wong v R HC Auckland CRI 2005-004-015296

[2008] NZHC 2377

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2005-004-015296

ALEX KWONG WONG

Applicant

v

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:         24 June 2008

Appearances: Applicant in Person

Ms R Reed for Crown

Judgment:      24 June 2008

BAIL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J On application to vary conditions of bail

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to:            A K Wong, Auckland

WONG V R HC AK CRI 2005-004-015296  24 June 2008

[1]      Mr Wong seeks to vary the conditions of bail by relaxing the curfew that applies to his electronic bail conditions at present.

[2]      The background to the matter is that in July 2006 following trial in this Court he was found guilty of money laundering and drug dealing.  The amount of drugs found was substantial, approximately 8.7 kilograms with a street value of 10 million dollars.  On conviction he was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment.  The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against that conviction on 18 April this year on the basis that during the trial the number of jurors was reduced to 10.  A retrial was directed.

[3]      Prior to the first hearing and conviction Mr Wong was on bail.  Following the direction setting aside the conviction and directing a retrial by the Supreme Court he applied for and was granted bail with electronic monitoring and a surety.   He now seeks to vary the terms of that by relaxing the curfew that applies.  In fact the curfew was relaxed on 27 May when it was relaxed from a 24 hour curfew to a curfew to apply between the hours of 5.00 p.m. and 10.00 a.m.  The reason Mr Wong seeks the relaxation is to enable him to take up the offer of a part-time job with the Flourishing Café.  That café has offered him employment between the hours of 6.00 p.m. and

11.00  p.m.  Monday  to  Saturday.    He  says  he  needs  that  additional  work  to supplement the part-time job he has at present.  He says he is innocent of the charges and that he sees no reason why he should be restricted in the way he is.  He notes that his earlier bail conditions prior to the first trial, were more relaxed than present.

[4]      I note that although Mr Wong is represented by counsel he has brought this application himself and has been assisted by an interpreter throughout the hearing.

[5]      The principal matter of concern to the Court is the flight risk in this case. There is a real and significant risk that Mr Wong may fail to appear in Court.  The reason for that is the substantial amount of drugs that he is alleged to have imported. The difference between the earlier trial and the position he is in now is that he is now well aware of the consequences of a conviction, namely that he will be sentenced to

a substantial term of imprisonment.   It is also relevant that a jury at his first trial, albeit reduced to 10 in number, found the charges against him proved.

[6]      I accept the submission for the Crown that the concern must be that if there is any relaxation in the curfew beyond the current time that there would be more opportunity for Mr Wong to put in place plans for flight.

[7]      It is a matter of balancing his desire to work part-time and earn more money against that risk.  I also take into account that the same job offer was in fact before the Court in May when the matter was considered by the Court at that time.

[8]      In my judgment the overwhelming issue in this case and the most important factor is the real and significant flight risk that Mr Wong poses.   I decline the

application to relax or vary the conditions of bail.

Venning J