NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of New Zealand Decisions

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2009 >> [2009] NZHC 1157

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

MATTHEW ANDREW BAXTER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2009-485-107 [2009] NZHC 1157 (1 September 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
                                                                  CRI 2009-485-107



                        MATTHEW ANDREW BAXTER



                                            v



                           
NEW ZEALAND POLICE



Hearing:      1 September 2009

Counsel:      K I Jefferies for Appellant
              M Snape for Respondent

Judgment:     1 September 2009


                      JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J
                             (Bail Appeal)



[1]    Mr Baxter appeals against a refusal of bail.


Current charges


[2]    Mr Baxter is charged with:


       a)     theft or
in the alternative receiving computer and electrical equipment;


       b)     theft of a vehicle;


       c)     burglary and
possession of instruments for burglary;


MATTHEW ANDREW BAXTER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2009-485-107 1 September 2009

 
     d)       supplying methamphetamine;


       e)       supplying, and possession for supply (x3) GBL.


[3]    He    also   has
  pleaded    guilty   to   a   single   charge   of   possessing
methamphetamine.


Bail decision


[4]    The District Court Judge
considered the apparent strength of the evidence,
noting that as regards theft/receiving the circumstances were difficult to answer
and
those charges alone could result in imprisonment.


[5]    It is noted that Mr Baxter, after some of these charges were laid
and on which
he obtained bail, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on a number of
unrelated matters, mainly involving breach
of bail and other conditions.           That
sentence will soon be served if it has not already been.


[6]    The Court noted that
between March and May Mr Baxter was effectively on
the run, having failed to appear on those other charges. The Court concluded he
was
a flight risk and that he might offend on bail.


Basis for appeal


[7]    Mr Jefferies submits the Judge erred in his exercise
of discretion and failed to
consider whether conditions might remove the flight risk. It is submitted the drug
offending charges
depend on inferences to be drawn from text messages, and the
property offending could well be met with a community based sentence.


[8]    In addition Mr Baxter's parents, who live in Auckland, now offer their home
as a bail address. The one early proffered has
been seen as unsuitable.

[9]    Mr Baxter is soon to stand trial on the burglary and property offending.
However, depositions are
still to be held on the drugs charges and the delay to trial is
likely to be lengthy.


Decision


[10]   Mr Baxter faces a number
of charges involving allegations of both property
and drug offending. He has twenty-nine previous convictions, two of which are
failure
to answer bail, and three of which are breach of community sentences. He
was in possession of a police scanner. His text messages
reveals an apparent belief
on his part of his cleverness in avoiding the police and eluding curfews. Numerous
warrants to arrest
for failing to appear have had to be issued. Mr Baxter, when
arrested, told police that in March he had seen police coming and had
escaped out of
a window. He then avoided police till his arrest in May. He has previously offended
while on bail.


[11]   Mr Baxter
was sentenced to short jail terms in April 2008 and June 2009.
The present charges focus primarily on October to December 2008, including
the
alleged drug dealing. There is a clear picture of someone who has committed
himself to a life outside the law. Whilst the present
matters are only allegations of
offending, there is plainly a body of evidence to confront. Further, his past conduct
leaves little
room for manoeuvre. I see no basis at all why society should be exposed
to any more risk than it need be, and consider suggestions
by Mr Baxter that he
would respect conditions of bail as not credible.


[12]   Bail was rightly declined by the District Court and
the appeal is dismissed.




                                                         __________________________
                                                             
         Simon France J

Solicitors:
K I Jefferies, Jefferies Raizis, PO Box 10641, Wellington, email: jrlaw@xtra.co.nz
M Snape,
Luke Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10357, Wellington, email: mws@lcc.co.nz



NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2009/1157.html