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

Police-v-B R R (1993) 11 FRNZ 25 (DC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Police v B R R
Reported: (1993) 11 FRNZ 25
File number: CRN3255005934
Date: 23 July 1993
Court: District Court
Location: Papakura
Judge: Harvey DCJ
Charge: Assault
CYPFA: s5(f); s322
Key Title: Delay
Brooker’s summary:

Youth justice - Rights of accused - Time for instituting proceedings - Delay in investigation - Unduly protracted delay in bringing matter to hearing - No reasonable explanation - Information dismissed - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 5(f), 322; Children and Young Persons Act 1974, s 100.

The defendant young person was alleged to have committed an assault on 6 June 1992. The matter was not investigated until 6 months later, and then only intermittently. The defendant was interviewed in January 1993 and a family group conference was held on 8 March 1993. The information was only laid on 1 April 1993. The matter first came to Court on 4 June 1993 where the information was denied. The hearing was subsequently set for 23 July 1993.

The defendant sought a dismissal of the information under s 322 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 submitting that the time that had elapsed between the date of the commission of the alleged offence and the hearing had been unnecessarily or unduly protracted.

Held, dismissing the information:

1) It is clear under s 5(f) that timing is significant in terms of activities under the Act. Decisions affecting a child or young person should wherever practicable be made and implemented within the time-frame appropriate to the child or young person's sense of time.

(2) The events that took place before and after the laying of the information must be taken into account. The delay between the alleged offence and the first appearance in Court (amounting to one year) would have been in itself an unduly protracted period of time. By the time the matter first came to Court on 4 June 1993, the time was so far out and the delay so inexplicable in terms of reasonableness of explanation that the matter would have failed anyway. Accordingly, the Court's discretion under s 322 will be exercised by dismissing the information.

Cases referred to

Police v C, Judge Carruthers, YC Wellington CRN0285015569

Application

This was an application under s 322 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 for the exercise of the Court's discretion to dismiss an information against a young person.

The facts appear from the judgment.[(1993) 11 FRNZ 25, 26]