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

Police v JME (29 September 1991) YC, Oamaru, CRN 1245003903, Young DCJ

Name: Police v JME
Unreported
File number: CRN 1245003903
Date: 29 September 1991
Court: Youth Court
Location: Oamaru
Judge: Young DCJ
Charge: Breaking and Entering
CYPF Act: s221
Key Title: Admissibility of statements; Jurisdiction of Youth Court - Age

Summary: JME (16 at time of alleged offence) interviewed regarding offence of breaking and entering; police officer cautioned JME but CYPFA not complied with as JME was 17 at time of interview and officer believed compliance not necessary. JME argued the statement should not be admissible. Section 2(2) CYPFA provides that "where proceedings under this Act are contemplated" the relevant age is that reached at the date of the offence. For JME it was argued that proceedings were "contemplated" at the time of the interview and thus the protections contained in sections 221 to 229 inclusive and section 232 were applicable. The Police argued that the purpose of the legislation was not to protect those who had already turned 17 at the time of their interview.

Where an accused is a YP at the time of the offence but the information is laid after his or her 17^th birthday, then the proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the CYPFA (Police v W, High Court, Auckland Registry, AP185/89, Gault J). In Police v W, Gault J approached the "awkward relationship" between s2(1) and s2(2) CYPFA by approaching the provisions of the Act sequentially. Using this approach, Young J analysed the relevant sections and determined that the age of a child or young person for the purpose of anything occurring within the CYPFA should be calculated using the section 2(2) formula. That formula only becomes relevant when proceedings are contemplated or taken and following the decision in Police v W, Young J found that proceedings had been taken in this case and thus the relevant age should be that at the date of the offence. Thus, in considering the challenge to the admissibility of the statement, JME’s age for the purpose of these proceedings, should be calculated in accordance with the formula in section 2(2). Accordingly, JME was a young person on the day the statement was taken because his age at the date of the commission of the offence for the purpose of these proceedings was 16 years.

Decision: Statement inadmissible.