In the Court Of Appeal of New Zealand
CA105/2010
[2010] NZCA 122

BETWEEN	SHANE CHARLES WENZEL
Appellant

AND	THE QUEEN
Respondent

Counsel:	M B Meyrick for Appellant
Crown Law Office for Respondent

Judgment:	31 March 2010 at 4.45 pm
(on the papers) 

JUDGMENT OF ELLEN FRANCE J	

The application for bail is declined.

REASONS

[1]	Mr Wenzel was sentenced on 10 February 2010 by Judge Epati to a term of five years imprisonment having been convicted after trial of 36 counts of dishonesty offending.
[2]	Mr Wenzel has appealed to this Court against his conviction and sentence.  He applies for bail pending the determination of his appeal, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000.  I personally have considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961.
[3]	The test to be applied in relation to the application is set out in s 14 of the Bail Act.  Under s 14(1), bail is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so.  Section 14(2) provides that the onus is on Mr Wenzel to show cause why bail should be granted.  Bail pending appeal is only granted in exceptional circumstances.
[4]	Mr Wenzel applies for bail on the basis that the case on appeal is strong.  The Crown opposes bail on the grounds nothing raised by Mr Wenzell is sufficient to oust the presumption against bail. .
[5]	I have very little information to enable me to assess even in a preliminary way the strength of the grounds of appeal.  The notice of appeal raises a number of matters, some of which relate to how the trial judge applied the law and others to trial fairness.  On the basis of the limited information I have, Mr Wenzel has not satisfied me that the grounds of appeal are so compelling as to displace the statutory presumption against bail. 
[6]	The application for bail pending appeal is declined. 

Solicitors: 
Berman and Burton, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent