Siemer v Solicitor-General [2009] NZCA 83 (17 March 2009)

Last Updated: 25 March 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA447/2008

[2008] NZCA 83

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Respondent

Court: O'Regan, Robertson and Arnold JJ

Counsel: Appellant in person
B J Horsley for Respondent

Judgment: 17 March 2009 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The terms of bail are varied in the following aspects:

(a) The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, who is holding Mr Siemer’s passport, may provide it to him on 30 March 2009 to enable Mr Siemer to travel to the United States of America;
(b) Upon his return to New Zealand, Mr Siemer is to surrender the passport to the Registrar by noon on 24 April 2009.
(c) In all other respects, the terms of Mr Siemer’s bail are confirmed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Robertson J)

[1] In the judgment of the Court delivered on 9 March 2009, we said:

[115] We anticipate that the appellant may wish to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision. We consider that it is appropriate that bail continues until the end of the time within which an application for leave must be made and, if an application for leave is made during that period, until further order of the Supreme Court.

[2] Mr Siemer has made an application for amendment to those bail terms to enable him to travel to the United States.

[3] He has not yet made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but in anticipation that he will, and in the absence of objection from the respondent, the terms of bail are varied in the following aspects:

(a) The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, who is holding Mr Siemer’s passport, may provide it to him on 30 March 2009 to enable Mr Siemer to travel to the United States of America;

(b) Upon his return to New Zealand, Mr Siemer is to surrender the passport to the Registrar by noon on 24 April 2009.
(c) In all other respects, the terms of Mr Siemer’s bail are confirmed.

[4] Mr Siemer has reiterated his application for a transcript of the hearing on 3 December 2008.

[5] On the basis of the information contained in the memorandum dated 12 March 2009, we are not satisfied that a transcript is necessary but further submissions may be made in this regard.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent