BAIL GRANTED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 138, 13 June 1934, Page 8

BAIL GRANTED.

JUDGE'S DECISION. AFTER A REFUSAL UNUSUAL APPLICATION. The factors influencing a refusal of bail when an accused person is remanded for trial were discussed when Mr. Justice Ostler was asked this morning at the Supreme Court to order the release of a man on bail. Mr. Noble appeared in support of the summons, and 1-.L". It. Meredith opposed it on behalf of the police. When his Honor asked on what ground bail waa refused in the Magistrate's Court. Mr. Noble replied that it was mostly on account of the accused's past history, but according to authority that was not a ground at all. The police had opposed bail, r.nd apparently the magistrate exercised his discretion. His Honor said that previous convictions were not a suflieient ground. Was there any reason to suspect that there might be a breach of the bail conditions? If that could not be shown there was no good reason to refuse bail. The offence seemed a petty one. Mr. Meredith stated that there were two charges against the accused of alleged theft from the person. He quoted the case of Rex v. Valli, where the question was decided by the Chief Justice, the late Sir Robert Stout. The latter had laid down that the paramount thing to consider was whether there was reason to believe that the accused would not appear. This was tested by three conditions, first the nature of the crime, secondly the weight of the punishment it carried, and thirdly the strength of the evidence. Theft from the person, added Mr. Meredith, was a grave crime and liable to a sentence of 14 years. He quoted from the depositions, whereupon his Honor observed, "That was not theft from the person. That was robbery with violence, with which he ought to be charged. Mr. Meredith: The charge may be amended. Ho added that in view of the fact that there were two complainants the charge was strengthened. "Previous Convictions Irrelevant." Mr. Noble said that the English authority went a good deal further than the New Zealand in respect of bail. In the case of Rex v. Robinson it had been laid down that the test was the probability of the party appearing to take his trial. He submitted that the Court could not go into the accused's character, and previous convictions could not enter into the matter. His Honor: Is ho likely to abscond? Mr. Noble replied that there was no danger. The accused was a married man with a family. Reliable surety could bo provided. The evidence was trifling. If his Honor was prepared to grant bail it could be on condition that the man reported daily to the police. His Honor remarked that though he had been on the Bench for about ten years, and had dealt with practically every sort of case, this was the first time an application for release on bail had come before him. He said he would consider tho authorities and give his decision later. Subsequently his Honor granted bail in accused's own recognisance of £100 and a surety of a similar amount, conditional on accused reporting daily to the police.