C v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2009-409-150 [2009] NZHC 1320 (23 September 2009)

Last Updated: 18 January 2016

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

_{CRI 2009-409-000150}

C

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 September 2009

Counsel: A C Kelland for Appellant

D Elsmore for Respondent

Judgment: 23 September 2009

_{JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J}

[1] The appellant, Ms C , appeals against a decision of the District Court (Judge J A Farish) to refuse to grant her bail on 3 September 2009. Ms C did not appear for sentence on 8 June on a number of shoplifting charges. She also was due to appear on that day on a breach of bail. She was making a voluntary appearance on 3 September and the Judge was considering an application to re-admit her to bail. She had received a final warning in relation to breach of her bail on

22 April.

[2] The Judge noted the period of time between 8 June and 3 September before making any effort to make a voluntary appearance. The Judge felt she had no faith

C V POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2009-409-000150 23 September 2009

that Ms C would abide by any bail conditions or appear on time on

9 September which was to be the sentencing date. She accordingly refused bail.

[3] The appellant is aged 19 and accordingly the granting of bail to her is governed by s 15 of the Bail Act 2000. It would appear that Judge Farish overlooked this aspect of the matter. There is no reference to s 15 in her judgment and the judgment does not read as an analysis under s 15. As this Court has many times had occasion to say, when s 15 applies the analysis starts with s 15 and works from there. The Court proceeds on a presumption that such defendants will be released on bail unless the Court has no real option, having regard to all the circumstances, but to remand the defendant in custody. See Manihera-Mako v Police HC CHCH CRI

2005-409-000081 4 May 2005.

[4] Because of the lack of reference to s 15, I consider that it is appropriate for this Court to reconsider afresh the merits of bail but I do so against the circumstances that now pertain and against an affidavit by Ms C and the submissions that I have heard this morning. I have also heard this morning from Ms C ’ mother who is in Court and who has assured me that she will be coming to Court with her daughter on 7 October which is the new sentencing date.

[5] I am satisfied that it is appropriate to bail Ms C to the address of her mother, pending sentencing on 7 October. I will now address bail conditions. The appellant is bailed to 58 Wairoa Street, Bexley, Christchurch. There will be a curfew between 7 pm and 7 am.

Solicitors:

Cunningham Taylor, Christchurch, for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Respondent