Reddy v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA75/2011
[2011] NZCA 42

BETWEEN KUNAL NAND REDDY
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Counsel: A Shaw for Appellant
N P Chisnall and M H Cooke for Respondent

Judgment: 1 March 2011

BAIL JUDGMENT OF RANDERSON J

The application for bail is dismissed.

___________________________________________________________________

The appellant was convicted after jury trial on one count of being an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced by Winkelmann J, Chief High Court Judge, on 4 February 2011 to a term of eight months imprisonment. The principal offenders were sentenced by the same Judge at the same time.
The appellant has appealed to this Court against both conviction and sentence. He has applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000. I have considered the application personally under s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.
The test to be applied in relation to the application is 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.
The application is advanced on the principal basis that the appellant is a first offender, has reasonable prospects of success, and a submission that his appeal would be rendered nugatory unless an early fixture can be given. It is submitted that the conviction appeal is not yet ready for hearing since a transcript of the summing up to the jury and an audio transcript relating to alleged irregularities in the delivery of the jury’s verdict are not yet available.
It is also said that one of the co-offenders (a Mr Ah-Chong) is about to file an appeal and that his appeal should be heard along with that of the present appellant.
The Crown opposes bail but accepts that an urgent hearing is needed to avoid injustice to the appellant. The Crown also accepts that, arguably, the issue of imprisonment versus home detention is finely balanced.
I accept the Crown’s submission that an urgent fixture is required to avoid injustice.
The Registry advise that it would be possible to hear this appeal (and, if necessary, the appeal by Mr Ah-Chong) in Wellington on 28 March 2011. Counsel in the present appeal and counsel in Mr Ah-Chong’s appeal (Mr Duff) are to inform the Registry as a matter of urgency whether the appeals could proceed together on that day.
In the meantime, the application for bail is declined but can be revisited in due course if necessary.
The Registry is to arrange a telephone conference before me with all counsel. Any necessary directions for the hearing of the appeals can then be made.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kunal Nand Reddy has appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant was convicted by jury on one count of being an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and was sentenced to a term of eight months imprisonment. Reddy has applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal under section 70 of the Bail Act 2000, but the application was dismissed by Randerson J. The appellant argues that he is a first offender, has reasonable prospects of success, and that his appeal would be rendered nugatory unless an early fixture can be given. The Crown opposes bail but accepts that an urgent hearing is needed to avoid injustice to the appellant.

The court considered the application for bail under section 14 of the Bail Act, which provides that 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 to do so. The onus is on the appellant to show cause why bail should be granted. The court found that an urgent hearing was required to avoid injustice to the appellant, but declined the application for bail. The court ordered that the appeal be heard in Wellington on 28 March 2011, and that counsel for the appellant and Mr Ah-Chong (a co-offender who is also appealing) inform the Registry as a matter of urgency whether the appeals could proceed together on that day. The court also directed that a telephone conference be held with all counsel to make any necessary directions for the hearing of the appeals.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for bail made by Kunal Nand Reddy, who was convicted and sentenced for being an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The court found that an urgent hearing was required to avoid injustice to the appellant, but declined the application for bail. The court ordered that the appeal be heard on 28 March 2011, and that counsel for the appellant and Mr Ah-Chong inform the Registry as a matter of urgency whether the appeals could proceed together on that day. The court also directed that a telephone conference be held with all counsel to make any necessary directions for the hearing of the appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established