Case relating to S. 21 of the Bail Act

Question 1

Case: R v Bryant [2001] 2 NZLR 319 (CA) “prudent”; s51 SPA, s21 Bail Act.
What are the facts to this case?

Answer 1

• September 1999: Police received complaint person matching Byant’s description was masturbating in local park
• Bryant went to Police Station to make a statement to deny any such acts
• An interview took place
• Bryant was arrested and placed in cells
• Bryant was charged for doing indecent acts
• Police officer is to prepare paperwork - includes completing charge sheet, preparing Prosecution file and completing details from Bryant
• Another Police officer spoke to Bryant and took a written statement before considering Police bail
• Later arresting officer began to prepare opposition to bail - perceived risk of further offending
• Next morning Bryant was spoken to another Police officer and made a video statement
• Bryant faced 6 charges the next morning before the Courts

Question 2

Case: R v Bryant [2001] 2 NZLR 319 (CA) “prudent”; s51 SPA, s21 Bail Act.
What did Bryant do following his first appearance before the Court?

Answer 2

• Bryant challenged the admission of the statements
• As Bryant was ‘bailable as of right’ - the argument was that Police should not have detained him as they did
• Result = unlawful detention = the 2 statements obtained were in breach of his rights and should be held inadmissible

Question 3

Case: R v Bryant [2001] 2 NZLR 319 (CA) “prudent”; s51 SPA, s21 Bail Act.
What were the Distrct Courts findings?

Answer 3

• Found Police detention LAWFUL.
• Judge determined lawful detention based on “considers it prudent to do so”. He held that the Police Officer had exercised his discretion not to grant bail to the accused on the day of his arrest, pursuant to S. 51 of the Summary Proceedings Act.

Question 4

Case: R v Bryant [2001] 2 NZLR 319 (CA) “prudent”; s51 SPA, s21 Bail Act.
What happened when Bryant took the matter before the Court of Appeal?

Answer 4

• Noted the differing bail regimes between Court bail processes and Police bail processes.

Question 5

Case: R v Bryant [2001] 2 NZLR 319 (CA) “prudent”; s51 SPA, s21 Bail Act.
Results.

Answer 5

HELD

• S. 51 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (repealed - S. 21 Bail Act 2000) confers the authority while not derogating from the duty to bring the Defendant before the Court
• Police are to consider whether a Defendant can be safely released until he or she becomes the responsibility of the Court
• The 2 bail regimes operate in tandem but are separate and apply at different points in time
• Application to appeal GRANTED, but appeal DISMISSED.