|
S v District Court At New Plymouth (1992) 9 FRNZ 57
Case summary provided by BROOKERS
Name: S v District Court at New Plymouth
Reported: (1992) 9 FRNZ 57; [1992] 3 NZLR 508; 8 CRNZ 241
File number: M31/92
Date: 30 April 1992
Court: High Court
Location: New Plymouth
Judge: Barker J
Charge: Aggravated Robbery; Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm; Assault
CYPF no: s275
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court – s275 offer/election
Brooker’s Summary:
Youth justice - Aggravated robbery.
Administrative law - Judicial Review - Youth, 14, not given opportunity by Justices of Peace of forgoing jury trial and electing to be tried in Youth Court due to seriousness of charges - Justices gave insufficient weight to principles relating to welfare of young person - Benefits to young person of speedy trial - Case remitted - Young person to be given option under s 275(1) - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 4, 5, 208, 274(2)(a), 275, 276, 277, 283, 284; Judicature Amendment Act 1972.
The prosecution alleged that two armed men robbed a picture theatre and that S, aged 14, was a secondary party to that crime. S was charged indictably with two counts each of aggravated robbery, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and assault. He wished to plead not guilty. Another offender, G, had been charged as a principal party in the robbery. Upon S's application, the two Justices of Peace who presided over the depositions hearing declined to give S the opportunity under s 275(1) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 of forgoing trial by jury and of electing to have the informations heard and determined in a Youth Court by a Youth Court Judge. The reason given was that the charges were too serious. The Crown had indicated that should S go on trial in the High Court, he would be tried jointly with G. This was an application for a judicial review of the Justices' decision.
Held, remitting the matter back to the Justices of Peace:
(1) The Justices did not give sufficient weight to the principles in the Act relating to the welfare of the child (found in ss 4, 5, and 208). Their decision based solely on the severity of the offence was too simplistic in light of the fact that the youth was only a secondary party to the offence.
(2) The committal of G is sufficiently far away and uncertain; the benefit to the young person of a speedy trial in the Youth Court outweighs any desirability of having him tried jointly with G in the High Court. In some cases the desirability of joint offenders being tried together could make it difficult to grant an application under s 275. This is not the case here.
(3) The plaintiff must therefore succeed. The matter is to be remitted to the Justices who are directed to give S the option under s 275(1).
(4) If the youth advocate here cannot be sufficiently remunerated for costs and disbursement under the Act, then this would be an eminently proper case for the grant of legal aid.
Cases referred to
Police v M [1990] DCR 544
R v M and C (1985) 1 CRNZ 694 (CA)[(1992) 9 FRNZ 57, 58]
Application
This was an application for judicial review of the decision of two Justices of Peace declining to give a young person the opportunity of forgoing trial by jury and of electing to have the information heard and determined in a Youth Court by a Youth Court Judge.
The facts appear from the judgment.
Top | Home | Publications | Ministry of Justice | Courts | Judiciary | Fines | Fees | Practice Notes | Vacancies | Tribunals | Media Releases | About Judgments | Addresses & Contacts | Disclaimer | newzealand.govt.nz
