Watchorn v The Queen

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA385/2014
[2014] NZCA 416

BETWEEN	JAMES WINSTON WATCHORN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	21 August 2014
Court:	O'Regan P, Simon France and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	S W Hughes QC for Appellant M D Downs for Respondent
Judgment:	22 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Bail pending decision)

We grant bail to the appellant on the following conditions:

(a)He is to reside at 525A Mangoriei Road, New Plymouth;
(b)He is to surrender all existing passports to the police and not apply for further passports.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by O’Regan P)

We heard this appeal yesterday, 21 August 2014.
At the conclusion of the hearing, we reserved our judgment. We did not have a concluded view on either the conviction appeal or the sentence appeal, but we were clear that, even if the conviction were to stand, the sentence of imprisonment was not appropriate. The issues in the appeal are complex and we wish to take time to deal with them. In those circumstances we invited counsel for the appellant to make an application for bail pending the release of our decision. That application was made and we have now received a memorandum setting out the conditions of bail that had been agreed between counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Crown.
We are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant bail given the circumstances described above.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal brought by James Winston Watchorn against the decision of the lower court. The appeal was both in respect of Watchorn's conviction and his sentence. The Court heard the matter on 21 August 2014, with the appeal being argued by S W Hughes QC on behalf of the appellant and M D Downs for the respondent. The Court reserved its judgment and, after considering the matter, invited the appellant's counsel to make an application for bail pending the release of their decision. The Court was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail under the conditions set out in the agreed memorandum. The Court was not satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, even if the conviction were to stand, and wished to take time to deal with the complex issues in the appeal.

The key legal issues before the Court were whether the conviction of the appellant was sound and, if so, whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The Court noted that it did not have a concluded view on either the conviction appeal or the sentence appeal, but was clear that the sentence of imprisonment was not appropriate. The Court recognised the complexity of the issues in the appeal and considered that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail to the appellant pending the release of their decision.

The Court granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions, including that he reside at a specified address and surrender all existing passports to the police and not apply for further passports. The Court was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail given the circumstances described above. The Court noted that the appeal was both in respect of Watchorn's conviction and his sentence and that the issues in the appeal were complex. The Court considered that it was necessary to take time to deal with the issues and that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail to the appellant pending the release of their decision.

The final orders of the Court were that the appellant be granted bail on the conditions set out in the agreed memorandum. The Court recognised the complexity of the issues in the appeal and considered that it was in the interests of justice to grant bail to the appellant pending the release of their decision. The Court noted that the appeal was both in respect of Watchorn's conviction and his sentence and that it did not have a concluded view on either the conviction appeal or the sentence appeal, but was clear that the sentence of imprisonment was not appropriate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established