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

Ratten v Edge (1992) 9 FRNZ 297 (HC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Ratten v Edge
Reported: (1992) 9 FRNZ 297
File number: AP20/92
Date: 10 June 1992
Court: High Court
Location: Timaru
Judge: Holland J
Charge:
CYPFA: s2; s215, s221
Key Title: Admissibility of statements; Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - Age
Brooker’s summary:

Children and young persons - Statutory interpretation - 17-year-old defendant interviewed about crime allegedly committed while a young person - Whether to be treated as "young person" under the Act - Whether interviewing officer needs to inform defendant of young person's rights - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2(2), 215, 221.

This was an appeal by way of case stated by the Crown against a District Court's ruling that a statement made by a 17-year-old youth to a police officer in relation to a crime alleged to have been committed by him when he was aged 16, was inadmissible under s 221 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 because the interviewing officer did not comply with s 215 of the Act. The interviewing officer considered that the appellant was no longer a young person and that the provisions of the Act did not apply.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

1) The situation has been dealt with by the High Court in Police v W (cited below) where it was held that such a person was still a young person within s 2(2) of the Act. The Crown's submission that the definition of "young person" in Police v W only relates to the appropriate Court for the proceeding is unsupportable.

(2) It may be that if there were no existing decision of the High Court, this Court could have been persuaded that, notwithstanding the clear wording of s 2(2), Parliament could not have intended for adults at the time of interview or being charged to be treated as children. That, however, seems to be the clear meaning of the words used in the statute.

(3) The decision of Police v W is indistinguishable from this case. It would not be in accordance with the best interests of justice for a puisne Judge to embark on an exploration with a view to reaching a conclusion different from that case. If the Crown wishes the law to be applied differently then there should either be a statutory amendment or a decision of the Court of Appeal.