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

H v Police (1994) 11 CRNZ 632 (HC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: H v Police
Reported: (1994) 11 CRNZ 632
File number: AP16/94
Date: 26 May 1994
Court: High Court
Location: Invercargill
Judge: Tipping J
Charge: Possessing a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse; Threatening to injure a female complainant with intent to frighten her
CYPF no: s322
Key Title: Delay
Brooker’s Summary:

Summary proceedings - Informations - Appeal against Youth Court findings - Uncertainty about date offence committed - No unnecessary delay in prosecution - No uncertainty concerning time for laying information - No material prejudice to appellant - Appeal dismissed - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989,s 322 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 14; Summary Offences Act 1981, ss 13A, 21.

The Youth Court made findings against the appellant on charges of possessing a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse and threatening to injure a female complainant with intent to frighten her. The information alleged the offences to have been committed on 16 October 1993. There was uncertainty, resulting from the evidence of the complainant and two witnesses, as to whether the offence was committed on 15 or 16 October.

As a result of the uncertainty of the date, the appellant submitted that first, it was unknown whether s 322 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 applied because it was unknown whether there had been any unnecessary delay in prosecution. Secondly, that it was unclear whether the informations had been laid within the 6 month time limit pursuant to s 14 Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Finally, the appellant submitted that he was prejudiced in his defence when the Judge declined to amend the informations, and as he had no knowledge of the specific date of the offences.

Held,

(1) Ordinarily the precise date of an offence is not a material ingredient of the offence. When an issue arises about the precise date, two questions usually arise: Is the precise date material for any reason? Is the defendant materially prejudiced by any uncertainty or inaccuracy in the alleged date?

(2) The argument concerning the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 cannot succeed. Whether the offence took place on 15 or 16 October, there was no unnecessary or undue protraction of the hearing.

(3) The argument concerning Summary Proceedings Act 1957 cannot succeed. Whether the offence took place on 15 or 16 October, the informations were laid within the time limit.

(4) There was no miscarriage of justice in the circumstances. The appellant was not materially prejudiced by the uncertainty when no amendment was made to the date on the information.

Cases referred to

R v Dean [1932] NZLR 753 (CA)
R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158
[(1994) 11 CRNZ 632,633] R v Hartley [1972] 1 All ER 599 (CA)
R v Wae Wae Uatuku [1948] NZLR 648 (CA)

Appeal

Appeal against Youth Court findings.