Morris v R [2011] NZCA 528 (13 October 2011)

Last Updated: 19 October 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA658/2011 [2011] NZCA 528

BETWEEN RAY PAUL MORRIS Applicant

AND THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel: Applicant in person K A L Bicknell for Respondent

Judgment: 13 October 2011 at 3 p.m. (On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF RANDERSON J

The application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________________________________________

[1] The applicant was found guilty by a jury in the District Court at Wellington on 29 October 2010[1] on 15 counts of historical sexual offending against three complainants. He was subsequently sentenced by Judge Tuohy to an effective term of imprisonment of seven years.
[2] Mr Morris filed an appeal against his conviction on 3 October 2011. The appeal has not yet been set down but he seeks bail pending appeal. Essentially, he says he requires bail in order to instruct a lawyer for the conduct of his appeal. He says that he does not constitute a flight risk and points to his history of compliance with bail conditions.
[3] It is evident from the Judge’s sentencing notes that the applicant suffers from mental health issues. At the time of sentencing he was an inpatient at the Purehurehu Unit under s 30 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The Judge was satisfied as to his fitness to stand trial and his fitness to attend for the purposes of sentencing.
[4] The Crown advises that the applicant is currently in the care of the Purehurehu Unit having been transferred there from prison under s 45 of the Mental Health Act 1992. Submissions have been received from the appellant while he has been in the Unit.
[5] It is difficult at this stage to make any assessment of the strength of the applicant’s grounds of appeal without more detailed grounds being specified. There are generalised allegations of non-disclosure, abuse of process and breach of natural justice. I note, however, that the applicant was represented both at trial and at sentencing by legal counsel and the Court was also assisted by an amicus familiar with the applicant’s circumstances.
[6] The test to be applied in relation to the bail application is set out in s 14 of the Bail Act. Bail must not 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.
[7] The Crown opposes bail on the basis that the circumstances do not disclose a case sufficiently compelling to overcome the statutory presumption against the grant of bail.
[8] I have considered the bail application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961. I am not persuaded that the circumstances are such that bail should be granted. There is nothing to suggest that there are any compelling grounds for an appeal and there is no reason why the applicant cannot obtain legal counsel for the purposes of appeal if he wishes to do so. His mental health issues are no doubt being addressed by the authorities in his present situation.
[9] Accordingly, the application for bail pending appeal is dismissed. It is in the applicant’s best interests to obtain legal counsel to assist him with his appeal. The Registrar is requested to liaise with the Purehurehu Unit in order to assist the applicant in applying for legal aid for the purposes of his appeal if an application has not yet been made.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

---

[1] R v Morris DC Wellington CRI-2009-035-985, 29 October 2010.