Youth Court Decisions How to Use Full list of key titles CYPFA section Date

Police v G (30 July 1990) YC, Henderson, CRN 020005035, Harvey DCJ

Name: Police v G
Unreported
File number: CRN 020005035
Date: 30 July 1990
Court: Youth Court
Location: Henderson
Judge: Harvey DCJ
CYPFA: s208; s214
Charge: Resisting a Police Officer in the Execution of his Duty
Key Title: Arrest without warrant; Principles

Summary: G (16) charged with resisting Police officer in the execution of his duty after pushing a Police officer in the chest. G had already given his particulars to one inexperienced Police officer but the Police officer making the arrest did not ascertain those details, particularly as to age. Counsel argued no case to answer because s214 CYPFA not complied with making the arrest and resisting charge invalid: Williams v Police [1981] 1 NZLR 108; ACC v Dixon [1985] 2 NZLR 489; Galvin v Police (Unreported, 22/4/86, HC, Rotorua Registry, M44/85, Bisson J); Morris v Beardmore [1980] 2 All ER 753, 759. Counsel further argued that, as there was no evidence that s214(3) CYPFA was complied with, this retrospectively invalidated the arrest; Judge considered Counsel on "thin ground" with this latter point; evidence as to s214(3) may be useful where there is an issue as to the credibility about the circumstances of the arrest but not for establishing whether the arrest was valid.

The provisions of s214(1) limit the general power of arrest without warrant that may be vested in enforcement officers where young people are concerned. If the validity of an arrest without warrant is challenged it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the preconditions contained in s214(1)(a) and (b) have been satisfied. No "reasonable compliance" section in the CYPFA relating to s214 as there is in s224 for s221. Where CYPFA silent on a point, Judge should look to s208 principles to test whether or not an action or a set of circumstances are in accordance with the statement of principles; question is whether the enforcement officer took the necessary steps to ensure the special protection of the young person during the investigation including such steps as necessary to ascertain whether or not the young person was subject to the CYPFA; each individual case will need to be determined upon its own facts. Here, Police officer suspected G was a young person but did not ask; his fellow inexperienced officer knew G was 16 but the two did not discuss the issue; thus, the Police officers did not take the necessary steps to ascertain whether G was covered by the CYPFA; none of the factors in s214(1)(a) and (b) were motivating factors for the officers, the reason for the arrest was that G had assaulted a Police officer. Held: arrest not in accordance with s214(1) and (2) CYPFA and the actions of the constable following upon that invalid exercise of the power of arrest were not justified by law; G’s efforts to struggle were actions in self defence. Arrest without a warrant is a serious matter. It must be exercised properly and such proper exercise should be scrutinised where appropriate by the Court

Decision: Power of arrest invalid.