Clarke v Ministry of Social Development [2014] NZHC 1829 (5 August 2014)

Last Updated: 20 August 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2014-485-54 [2014] NZHC 1829

NEIL MARTIN CLARKE Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	5 August 2014
Counsel:	Appellant in Person E M Light for Respondent
Judgment:	5 August 2014

_{JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J}

[1] Mr Clarke is charged with using a phone to make a bomb threat and two charges of assault on police constables. When he appeared in Court on

30 April 2014 the District Court Judge remanded him on bail requiring him to live at his residence and as a condition of bail not to contact the emergency services unless he had a genuine emergency.

[2] Mr Clarke filed a notice of appeal. Essentially, the notice of appeal says that the condition of bail relating to the emergency services is difficult to obey because of its uncertain reach.

[3] I agree the condition of bail imposed is uncertain as to its meaning. Presumably the emergency services are the Fire Service, the Ambulance and the Police. The bail condition would prevent Mr Clarke from calling these services

_{other than in emergencies. Obviously citizens will have occasions when they need to}

CLARKE v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 1829 [5 August 2014]

call the emergency services but there is no emergency. The Judge could not have intended to prevent Mr Clarke from contacting the emergency services where he had a genuine enquiry but which was not an emergency.

[4] The bail condition is, therefore, quashed. No alternative phrasing was suggested by the police which was functional. Given a malicious phone call can be an offence (Telecommunications Act 2001, s 112(2)(a)) no substitute bail condition

_{is required.}

Solicitors:

Luke Cunningham & Clere, Crown Solicitors, Wellington

Ronald Young J