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

C v District Court at Dunedin (1993) 10 FRNZ 416; (1993) 10 CRNZ 260 (HC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: C v District Court at Dunedin
Reported: (1993) 10 FRNZ 416; (1993) 10 CRNZ 260
File number: CP33/93
Date: 6 May 1993
Court: High Court
Location: Dunedin
Judge: Holland J
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
CYPFA: s274; s275; s277
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s275 offer/election; Youth Court Procedure; Jointly charged with adult; Adult co-offenders
Brooker’s summary:

Administrative law - Judicial review - Young person charged indictably with adult co-accused - Young person not given opportunity of electing to be tried in Youth Court - No record of Youth Court Judge's reasons - Procedure to follow - Adequate reasons why affidavit evidence not required - Crown's support of application - Admission of guilt - Law changes advocated - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 274, 275, 277, 443; Summary Proceedings Act 1957, Part V.

Youth justice - Rights of accused - Young person charged indictably with adult co-accused - Young person not given opportunity of electing to be tried in Youth Court - No record of Youth Court Judge's reasons - Procedure to follow - Adequate reasons why affidavit evidence not required - Crown's support of application - Admission of guilt - Law changes advocated - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 274, 275, 277, 443; Summary Proceedings Act 1957, Part V.

The applicant, aged 16, was charged indictably with aggravated robbery with his co-accused, an adult. At the preliminary hearing, the Youth Court Judge declined an application under s 275 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 for an order that the applicant be given the opportunity of electing to be tried in the Youth Court. The Judge committed the applicant and his co-accused to the High Court for trial. This was an application for a review of that decision.

There was no record of the Judge's reasons. Holland J was persuaded not to require affidavit evidence giving the Judge an opportunity of reply for two reasons (although he warns that this should not form a precedent):

(1) Counsel for the Crown supports the application and wishes the applicant to be sent back to the Youth Court to enable the question of election to be considered again by that Court; and

(2) The applicant has now said that he wishes to admit to the offence (this reason being the more persuasive).

Held, quashing the Youth Court decision and directing that Court to give the applicant the right of election:

1) Where there is no record of a Judge's reasons, counsel wishing to challenge those reasons should confer with counsel on the other side, or in this case, the prosecuting officer, so that the notes they have taken of what the Judge said may be compared and an attempt made to agree on their content. Such a document should be submitted to the Judge in question for his approval or comment. In those circumstances it would be hoped that an agreed statement of facts could be presented to the Court but if no agreement is reached, then, the matter should be placed before the Court by way of affidavit.

(2) As a general proposition, it is highly desirable that where more than one person is charged with an offence, the charges are heard together. It is even more desirable that such offenders, if convicted, be dealt with by the same Judge who can more easily apportion blame and assess the degrees of participation of the offenders.[(1993) 10 FRNZ 416, 417]

(3) There is room for argument that s 277 applies only to summary trials and does not apply to the preliminary hearing of indictable charges.

(4) It would seem unfortunate that where, as here, a young person, after having been committed for trial in the High Court, wishes to plead guilty is debarred from being treated as a young person under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. It is suggested that the Act ought to be amended so as to empower a Judge of the High Court or District Court, following a plea of guilty or a conviction of a young person after a committal for trial on an indictable offence, either to exercise the powers given to a Youth Court Judge under the Act or to have power to remit the matter to a Youth Court Judge for sentence, should a High Court Judge or a District Court Judge consider it appropriate to do so.

(5) The Crown having consented to the manner in which the proceedings were brought, it is held that the Youth Court Judge did not give proper attention to the matters required of him under the Act.

Cases referred to

Police v Tai (1991) 8 FRNZ 613
S v District Court at New Plymouth (1992) 9 FRNZ 57

Application

This was an application for judicial review of the decision of the Youth Court declining to give the applicant the opportunity of being dealt with in the Youth Court and committing him to the High Court for trial.

The facts appear from the judgment.