[Full judgment: Lundy_v_R_Bail_Application.pdf]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
CRI 2001-054-832244

[2013] NZHC 2652

MARK EDWARD LUNDY

Applicant
v
THE QUEEN

Respondent

[...]

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

(Bail Application)

[1] Mr Lundy applies for bail. His circumstances are well known. He was charged and tried in the Palmerston North High Court in 2002 with the murder of his wife and child. He was convicted of both murders and sentenced to life imprisonment and initially ordered to serve a minimum period of 17 years. Subsequently the minimum term was increased to 20 years on appeal.

[2] On 7 October 2013 the Privy Council gave judgment on an appeal by Mr Lundy. The appeal was allowed the convictions quashed and an order that the appellant should stand trial again on the charges of murder was ordered.

[3] Mr Lundy has now applied for bail in this Court and it is for this Court to decide if he should be granted bail.

[4] Section 9A of the Bail Amendment Act 2013 which came into force in September of this year and provides that where a person is charged with murder the onus is on the defendant to satisfy the Judge that bail should be granted. In particular, the defendant must satisfy a Judge on the balance of probabilities that that person will not while on bail, commit any offence involving violent against, or danger to the safety of any person. A Judge must consider as a primary matter the protection of the public and the need to protect the safety of any particular person or persons.

[...]

[20] In my view all of these factors point toward a grant of bail. I am satisfied, therefore, first that Mr Lundy has overcome the s 9A presumption regarding danger to the public through violent offending and I am satisfied there is little or no risk of him offending while on bail, interfering with witnesses or failing to turn up for trial nor any other residual reasons why bail should not be granted.

[21] The application for bail is, therefore, granted. It will be granted on the following conditions:

(a) first, that Mr Lundy reside at [suppressed]. I suppress from publication that address;

(b) secondly, that Mr Lundy makes no contact whatsoever nor attempts to communicate with any of those persons who gave evidence at his trial on the previous occasion. A list of those persons will be attached to the bail grant;

(c) next, Mr Lundy is to report to the [suppressed] police station once per week on a Wednesday between 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m.;

(d) I suppress from publication the name of the police station. Some suggestion of a geographical limitation was raised. Given the prohibition against contact with witnesses I do not consider that that is, in this case, required.

[22] Two further matters. I repeat my warning to Mr Lundy that any breach of bail particularly relating to the non contact provision would likely result in a remand in custody.

[23] Finally, I emphasise for the benefit of those in Court today and especially those from the media that s 19 of the

[Full judgment: Lundy_v_R_Bail_Application.pdf]

© Scoop Media