Namulauulu v R [2011] NZCA 471 (19 September 2011)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Namulauulu v R [2011] NZCA 471 (19 September 2011)

Last Updated: 29 September 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA499/2011 [2011] NZCA 471

BETWEEN ROBERT NAMULAUULU Applicant

AND THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel: S Tait for Applicant A Toohey for Respondent

Judgment: 19 September 2011 at 12.00 pm

(on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J

The application for bail is dismissed.

REASONS

Application for bail pending appeal

[1] The applicant was convicted on two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, one count of possession of explosives, two counts of intentional damage and one count of assault.
[2] On 5 August 2011 he was sentenced to a term of two years four months imprisonment.[1]
[3] The applicant has appealed to this Court against his sentence.
[4] The applicant has applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000. I personally have considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.
[5] The test to be applied in relation to the application is that set out in s 14 of the Bail Act. Under s 14(1), bail is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so. Section 14(2) provides that the onus is on the applicant to show cause why bail should be granted.
[6] The grounds of appeal relate to the length of sentence, disparity with a co-offender and the failure to take into account personal circumstances. It is contended that the applicant should have been sentenced to home detention. It is submitted for the applicant that the thrust of an appeal will be diminished if the applicant remains in custody. It is also submitted for the applicant that there are two matters in terms of the applicant’s personal circumstances. The first is that until sentence the applicant was in employment. The second is that incarceration will impose financial hardship on the applicant’s family.
[7] The grounds of appeal do not appear so compelling that it would be in the interests of justice to grant bail pending appeal. Nor are the applicant’s personal circumstances so out of the ordinary as to justify bail being granted.
[8] The appeal should, however, be brought on urgently for hearing.

Result

[9] The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Tucker & Co, North Shore for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

---

[1] R v Namulauulu DC Manukau CRI-2010-092-10802, 5 August 2011.