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

Williams v Police (1993) 10 FRNZ 317 (HC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Williams v Police
Reported: (1993) 10 FRNZ 317
File number: AP104/92
Date: 26 February 1993
Court: High Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: Williams J
Charge: Burglary
CYPFA: s2; s215
Key Title: Evidence, Admissibility of Statements
Brooker’s summary:

Children and young persons - Evidence - Admissibility - Appeal - Appellant, 17, admitted to burglaries committed while a young person - Special provisions under s 215 relating to interviewing young persons not followed by police - Whether special provisions applied to appellant - Whether Bill of Rights Act breached - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2(2), 215; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23(1)(b).

While certain burglary charges were pending the appellant, who had just turned 17, told the police that he wanted to "clear up" other burglaries. He accompanied two officers in their car to identify the places he had burgled. After that the appellant was taken back to the police station and photographed. He declined to make a statement and was then taken to his home.

In the District Court, the appellant appeared to face a large number of burglary charges. Objection was made to the admissibility of the evidence of the police. It was argued that the admissions were inadmissible because the requirements of s 215 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 were not followed. The question before the District Court Judge was whether those special provisions relating to the interviewing of young persons applied to a person who was at the time of the interview over 17 years of age. The District Court Judge overruled the objections, finding that the statements were admissible because the Act and the special requirements of s 215 did not apply.

In this appeal it was also argued that there had been a breach of s 23(1)(b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in that the appellant was not advised of his right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) So far as the application of the Act is concerned, the holding of the majority in Police v Edge (1992) 9 FRNZ 659 (CA) (which is not obiter as argued by the appellant) is decisive in this appeal. In that case it was held that a police interview with a person over the age of 17 at a time when no proceedings had been convened or were in contemplation does not require the procedures of s 215 to be followed.

(2) The success of the Bill of Rights Act argument depends upon whether the appellant was at the time under arrest or detained. The findings of fact made by the District Court Judge are wholly inconsistent with the proposition that the appellant was arrested or detained, or in de facto custody when the admissions were made.[(1993) 10 FRNZ 317, 318]

Cases referred to

Police v Edge (1992) 9 FRNZ 659 (CA)
Police v W (1990) 6 FRNZ 711
R v Butcher and Burgess [1992] 2 NZLR 257; (1991) 7 CRNZ 407 (CA)
R v Cordes (1992) 9 CRNZ 639 (CA)
R v Latta (1992) 8 CRNZ 520 (CA)
R v Narayan (1992) 8 CRNZ 235 (CA)
Terekia v MOT 13/5/91, Barker J, HC Auckland AP32/91

Appeal

This was an appeal against the decision of the District Court to admit as evidence statements made by the appellant to the police in relation to numerous burglaries.

The facts appear from the judgment.