Olsen v The Queen

[2014] NZCA 555

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA632/2014
[2014] NZCA 555

BETWEEN	MICHAEL KRISTIAN OLSEN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in Person
J E Mildenhall for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

18 November 2014 at 10:00 am

JUDGMENT OF RANDERSON J

The application for bail is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

1. The appellant was convicted after a jury trial in the District Court on one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure.  He was sentenced on 1 October 2014 by Judge Gibson to imprisonment for two and a half years.

2. The appellant has appealed to this Court against conviction and may also appeal against sentence.[1]  He now seeks bail pending appeal pursuant to s 55 of the Bail Act 2000. 

   [1]The notice of appeal does not make this clear. 

3. I have personally considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.

4. The test to be applied is that set out in s 14 of the Bail Act.  Under s 14(1), bail is not to 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 appellant to show cause why bail should be granted.  Bail will usually only be granted in exceptional circumstances and where the interests of justice require.[2]

   [2]Ellis v R [1998] 3 NZLR 555 (CA) at 560 and Iti v R [2012] NZCA 307 at [7].

5. The conviction appeal is to be advanced on the basis that the appellant was wrongly identified as the offender.  It is said that CCTV evidence will identify the correct offender.  As well, issues of trial counsel incompetence are raised along with allegations of lies and corruption on the part of the police.  It is also said that there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to the appellant’s arrest and initial detention.

6. The appellant says that he has been in custody or on electronic bail for some time prior to his conviction and that his appeal may not be heard before he has completed his sentence. 

7. The Crown opposes bail on the grounds that the apparent strength of Mr Olsen’s appeal is speculative; the sentence is not so short as to render the appeal academic; the appellant has a history of breaching bail and a significant history of prior offending. 

8. I accept the submissions made by the Crown.  It cannot be said at this stage that the appellant has strong grounds for appeal: he has a number of previous convictions for breaching bail as well as convictions for other offending indicating a disregard for authority and his appeal can be heard relatively quickly.  The Registry advises that a fixture could be made in February or March next year.  It lies in the appellant’s hands to advance his appeal as quickly as possible.

9. In summary, I am not persuaded that any of the matters raised by the appellant in support of his application for bail are sufficient to overcome the presumption against the grant of bail.  The application for bail is declined accordingly.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent