Offender narrowly avoids being in custody ahead of sentencing

Joshua Sugrue’s tardiness in completing a court-ordered presentence report meant he came close to being remanded in custody for eight weeks until his new sentencing date on a burglary charge.

Judge Jim Large was far from impressed with Sugrue’s approach to the court order as he heard of a missed meeting with the Probation Service on July 4 and an inability of the service to then contact him in the intervening time up to yesterday’s sentencing date.

Sugrue’s lawyer, Codi Lilley, said the July 4 date was missed because of ‘‘medical reasons’’ and she had seen a medical certificate dated later because the medical centre would not let him attend the centre given the symptoms he was experiencing at the time.

Probation said Sugrue, who lives in the Temuka area, could not be contacted since, and he had claimed that his phone had not been working, and he had switched to a new number.

‘‘To be frank, I’m totally unimpressed at this attitude and approach to his obligations,’’ Judge Large said.

‘‘The issue is whether to remand you in custody to September 27, so Probation will know where he is.’’

Judge Large said imprisonment was a real possibility.

‘‘By an incredibly narrow margin I’m going to grant you bail and remand you to September 27 for a [pre-sentence] report to be completed.

‘‘If you don’t hear from Probation then you need to contact them to make positive steps, or you will be the person in custody.’’

Judge Large said he was tagging a warning to Sugrue’s file to whoever presides over any possible breach of bail relating to non-compliance.

‘‘Failure to attend any meeting will be a breach of bail and Probation can ring the police and advise them of that and that will be an immediate arrest, and you will likely be remanded in custody until your sentencing.’’

‘‘I’m totally unimpressed at this attitude and approach to his obligations.’’

Judge Jim Large