Police v Kakino [2011] CKHC 59; CR434.2011 (26 July 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
CRN 434/11

BETWEEN

KAKINO NOOROA KAKINO JNR
Applicant

AND

POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 26 July 2011

Counsel: Ms L Rokoika for Applicant
Mr T Manavaroa for Respondent

Judgment: 26 July 2011

JUDGMENT OF C NICHOLSON J

[1] The Applicant applies for bail. The background circumstances are that on the 20th of May 2010 the Applicant was sentenced to 13 months imprisonment for a series of burglaries and escaping from custody. That term of imprisonment expired on the 18th of June 2011.

[2] On the 8th of April 2011 the Applicant was granted parole and placed on probation for 12 months with conditions. On the 3rd of May 2011 the Applicant appeared before a Justice of the Peace on a charge of burglary and was released on bail with conditions. He was arrested later that day when the Police learned that he had been consuming alcohol in breach of a bail condition. On the 4th of June 2011 the Applicant was released on bail subject to conditions. On the evening of the 27th June 2011 the Applicant was present at the residence approved as a bail condition when the Police did a curfew check, however half an hour later the same Police Officer returned and found that the Applicant was not then at that residence. The Police point out that preceding this application for bail the Applicant had sought bail before three separate Justices of the Peace, that was opposed by the Police and declined.

[3] The Applicant faces nine charges:

1. That between the 1st of May and the 12th of June 2011 he committed burglary on the Raina Beach Apartments.
   
2. On the 1st of June he committed a breach of bail condition by consuming alcohol
   
3. On that day he committed burglary on the Ocean View Villas.
   

4. On 27 June he breached a bail condition by consuming alcohol.

5. On that same day he breached a bail condition by being abroad during curfew hours;.

6. On that same day being a male he assaulted a female.

7. On the following day, 28th of June, he committed burglary on Brian Morgan's dwellinghouse.

8. On 28 June he breached a bail condition by being abroad during curfew hours.

9. Between the 27th and 28th of June 2011 he threatened to kill Brian Morgan.

[4] Ms Rokoubmitted that the reasoreason that the Applicant left the residence on the 27th of June after the Police check was that he had had a fight with his girlfriend who threatened to call the Policehe therefore left.


[5] Ms Rokoika advised that thplaimplainant Brian Morgan is the father of the Applicant's girlfriend and states that there was not a burglary committed on his house on the 29th of June. However, burglary has an extended me in law which Mr MorgaMorgan mayunderstand. and. The allegation is that, in respect of the charge of threatening to kill Mr Morghat as a result of the the threat Mr Morgan has had to vacate hms home.

[6] In a very detailed submission Ms Rokcanvassed the principles regarding holding a person in custody and granting bail and said taid that there was a residence available fe Applicant to live at the the home of Doreen Kakino at Kavera on a 24-hour curfew and that there was employment at a farm offered by Teava Iro Junior as evidenced by a letter from him. That employment would be from 8.30 am pm Monday to Fridayriday. A 24-hour curfew would need to allow for the Applicant to attend to travel to and from that employment and attend at it.

[8] Mr Manavarbmitted in his writtwritten submissions that the offenlleged are serious and that the evidence in support of them is strong. He pointed out that that the Applicant has previously been cond andenced for seven oven offencffences of burglary and one offence of escaping from custody. In light of the Applicant's previous convictions and the charges that he now faces, he submitted that there was a high possibility of the Applicant re-offending if granted bail, and also of breaching any bail conditions imposed.

[9] Although it will be a considerable time before resolution by trial, I am satisfied having regard to the Applicant's behaviour as indicated by previous convictions and the number and nature of the charges which he presently faces, that there is a high probability of the Applicant offending if he is granted bail and of breaching bail.

[10] In all the circumstances I consider that there is just cause for the Applicant to continue in custody until trial. I accordingly decline the application for bail and order that the Applicant continue in custody until trial or until earlier released on bail on a further application to the Court.

[11] By agreement there will be a callover on 11 August 2011.

CM Nicholson J

Editorial Note: Derived from the Court’s electronic records and believed to be correct and final.