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

Police v P and T (Young Persons) (1991) 8 FRNZ 642

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Police v P and T (Young Persons)
Reported: (1991) 8 FRNZ 642
File number: CRN1204003983
Date: 4 October 1991
Court: Youth
Location: Auckland
Judge: F W M McElrea
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
CYPF no: s276
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s276 offer/election; Family Group Conference - Non agreement; Prosecution; Victims
Brooker's Summary:

Children, young persons, and their families - Youth justice - Aggravated robbery - Jurisdiction - Prosecutor need not agree with youth aid officer involved in an agreement made in family group conference - Victim's view to be taken into account even if did not attend conference - Role of conference when considering appropriate jurisdiction - Recommendation of outcome can be useful to Court when deciding orders - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 273, 276, 283, 284; Crimes Act 1961, s 321; District Courts Act 1947, ss 28F, 28G, Schedule 1A; Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 7, 153A, 168; Victims of Offences Act 1987.

P, 16, and T, 15, together with a 20-year-old man, were charged with purely indictable offences involving the aggravated robbery of a liquor store. P and T asked to be given the opportunity under s 276 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 to plead guilty and to be dealt with in the Youth Court. A family group conference in the case of T recommended that he be dealt with in this Court by way of orders for supervision with residence. In respect of P, there was no agreement in the conference on a course of action. The youth aid officer in that conference wished the matter to be transferred to the District Court for sentence under s 283(o) of the Act. The victim refused to attend either of the conferences but he expressed the view, in the victim impact report, that P and T should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Three issues had arisen:

(a) Whether it was appropriate for the police through its prosecutor in Court to oppose a recommendation of the family group conference when that recommendation had been formed with the agreement of the youth aid officer at the conference.

(b) Whether the Court could take into account the views of a victim who does not attend a conference.

(c) The prosecutor argued that it was not open to the family group conference in the matter of T to put before the Court a recommendation for supervision with residence when the only thing they were invited to consider was the appropriate jurisdiction.

NB. The case gives a useful clarification of the impact of the new criminal (jury trial) jurisdiction of the District Court (effective 1 October 1991) on purely indictable offences in relation to Youth Court jurisdiction.

Held,

(1) there is a danger that if the Court were to say that the prosecutor cannot disagree with the youth aid officer, then youth aid officers might be given riding instructions by prosecutors as to what they can accept and what they cannot accept at a family group conference: that would be a retrograde step and would be contrary to the spirit of the Act. Youth aid officers have [(1991) 8 FRNZ 642, 643]to be free to deal with the matter as they see fit based on what happened at the conference. Provided it does not happen regularly, there is nothing wrong with a prosecutor, for good reason, expressing a different view to the youth aid officer. The prosecutor's view is to be taken into account but the Court must give heavy weight to the recommendations of the conference although it is free to depart from them where appropriate.

(2) The Victims of Offences Act 1987, which applies to all Courts, requires the Court to take into account the views of victims. The victim's views are taken into account here but could have been more helpfully expressed at the family group conferences.

(3) A tentative recommendation from the family as to what they think a suitable outcome would be is something that can assist the Court. It can then be weighed up in a serious manner and the Court can then decide whether it is a feasible outcome or not in the light of all other matters.

(4) Both P and T will be given the opportunity under s 276 to forgo their rights to trial by jury and plead guilty and be dealt with in the Youth Court.

Cases referred to

Kent v US 383 US (1966)
Police v M [1990] DCR 544
Police v Tai (a young person) (1991) 8 FRNZ 613

Hearing

This matter deals with the question of whether the young persons concerned should be given the opportunity under s 276 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 to plead guilty and to be dealt with in the Youth Court.

The facts appear from the judgment.