CHRISTOPHER TU PUAAELO V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2008-409-000022 [2009] NZHC 106 (12 February 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
                                                             CRI-2008-409-000022



                        CHRISTOPHER TU PUAAELO
                                Appellant



                                 
       v



                            NEW ZEALAND POLICE
                                 Respondent



Hearing:      12 February
2009

Counsel:      M J Knowles for Appellant
              B Hawes for Respondent

Judgment:     12 February 2009


           
       ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J



[1]    This is an appeal against a decision by which bail was declined at the
conclusion
of a preliminary hearing. The case has a convoluted history. Mr Puaaelo
was charged with three offences arising from events alleged
to have occurred on
28 March 2008.    There were two charges of threatening to kill relating to the
appellant's partner and his partner's
daughter, and a further charge of wounding with
intent to cause grievous bodily harm against Kelly Warahi.


[2]    At times the
appellant has been on bail, but he has also spent several months
in custody since he was first arrested and brought to court on 28
March last. A
number of depositions hearings did not proceed as planned for various reasons,

CHRISTOPHER TU PUAAELO V NEW ZEALAND
POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2008-409-000022 12 February
2009

including that one or more of the complainants failed to appear or counsel
then
representing the appellant was unavailable.


[3]    The appellant was released on bail in August at about the point that
Mr
Knowles commenced to act for him. However, following a further aborted
preliminary hearing in September an arrest warrant was issued
and since 12
December Mr Puaaelo has been in custody again.


[4]    The preliminary hearing finally occurred in the District Court
in late January.
The two complainant women were obviously reluctant witnesses.                    Indeed,
Mr Knowles has made the
point that this was signalled from a very early stage, that
is that they were unlikely to ever come up to brief. In the result there
is, it appears,
little or no evidence capable of supporting the major charge, perhaps also the
threatening charges. But there may
be some evidence which would support revised
charges of a rather lesser nature. Counsel are likely to confer as to this and it may
well be that an indictment will be able to be filed in advance of the deadline of
10 March. If common ground cannot be reached, then
it appears inevitable that a
s347 application will result, but that may not prove to be the case.


[5]    In any event my concern
is as to the appellant's status in the meantime. The
preliminary hearing was before Justices of the Peace. They did not give reasons
for
their bail decision. Accordingly I must approach the matter afresh. In light of what
occurred at the preliminary hearing it seems
to me that bail must be granted. The
fact is that the appellant is likely to face charges which will warrant, at most, a short
term
of imprisonment and he has already served several months in custody for the
reasons already mentioned.


[6]    Mr Hawes sought a
condition of bail that the appellant not be in contact with
his partner, one of the complainants, Ms TeMoana. Mr Knowles has pointed
out that
the appellant, if permitted, would return to the address he previously occupied with
Ms TeMoana and that she wants him there.


[7]    While I well appreciate the realities of the situation, in my view the
appropriate course is to grant bail, but on the basis
that Mr Puaaelo is to reside at his

mother's address at 69 Keighleys Road, Linwood, Christchurch. I also impose a
condition that
he is not to communicate in any way with either of the complainant
women until the charges are dealt with. He is to report to the
Christchurch Police
Station twice weekly on Tuesdays and Fridays between 2 pm ­ 5 pm, or between
such other hours as may be advised
to him in writing at the watchhouse.


[8]     As I have already commented to counsel, there is an obvious need for this
matter to be confronted sooner rather than later. Mr
Hawes indicated that he should
be in a position to provide a revised indictment in advance of the due date.
Hopefully the matter
can be dealt with promptly in the District Court.




_________________________________________________________________________________
Solicitors:
Michael Knowles Barrister, Christchurch for Appellant
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent