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

T v District Court at Whangarei (1994) 12 FRNZ 619 (HC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: T v District Court at Whangarei
Reported: (1994) 12 FRNZ 619
File number: CP10/94
Date: 12 October 1994
Court: High Court
Location: Whangarei
Judge: Barker J
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
CYPF no: s275
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court – s275 offer/election; Justices of the Peace - Powers
Brooker’s Summary:

Youth justice - Jurisdiction - Aggravated robbery - Preliminary hearing by Justices - Plaintiff committed for trial under s 275 - Youth Court Judge ordered a family group conference to decide appropriate forum - Judicial review proceedings - Whether discretion to give young person an election under s 275 was exercised - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 274, 275, 283.

The plaintiff was arrested in July 1993 and brought before the Youth Court on a charge of aggravated robbery. The information was laid indictably. Under s 246 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, the plaintiff consulted his counsel and indicated that he wished to deny the charge. As a result of a family group conference, an order was made that the plaintiff be released into the custody of his parents. It was noted that he continued to deny the aggravated robbery charge. In October 1993, a preliminary hearing of the indictable charge of aggravated robbery was held in the Youth Court at Whangarei presided over by two Justices of the Peace. At the conclusion of the hearing the Justices noted that the case was prima facie established, the defendant pleaded not guilty, and he was committed to the Youth Court at Whangarei under s 275 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act for trial.

The matter came before the Youth Court, where the Judge was concerned that the deposition hearing had been conducted before Justices of the Peace. The Judge ordered a family group conference to determine whether the plaintiff should be dealt with by the Youth Court or committed to the High Court for trial. At the conference no agreement was reached as to which Court should exercise jurisdiction to hear the trial.

The plaintiff commenced judicial review proceedings on the basis that once the Justices of the Peace had exercised their discretion under s 275 and had given the plaintiff an opportunity to be tried in the Youth Court, there was no jurisdiction on the Principal Youth Court Judge to order a family group conference to decide where the plaintiff was to be tried.

Held, adjourning the matter until a statement was obtained from Justices stating whether they realised they had a discretion:

(1) A careful reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 indicates that once the discretion under the Act has been exercised by the Court, whether the Court comprises a Youth Court Judge, a District Court Judge, or two Justices of the Peace, then the trial has to take place in the Youth Court without a preliminary family group conference to decide whether the Youth Court is the appropriate forum. The Youth Court Judge must hear the case as a defended matter and decide in accordance with ordinary principles whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. If the accused is found guilty, then there can be a family group conference to consider the penalty.[(1994) 12 FRNZ 619, 620]

(2) The spirit of the legislation (s 274) would be met if it could be arranged legislatively that, where a young person denies a charge laid indictably, then some machinery be put in place for scheduling the depositions to be heard before a Youth Court Judge. The clear message of the legislation is that such preliminary hearings are normally to be presided over by a Youth Court Judge. The discretions that could be exercised under ss 275 and 276 provide reason for this view. The Justices of the Peace did not lack jurisdiction, but the subsequent decision of the Youth Court Judge to require a family group conference was not ordained by the statute.

(3) In this case the Justices did not give reasons for their decision. It is important to obtain from the Justices a statement about whether they realised they had a discretion. If there was no exercise of the discretion, the matter may have to be referred back to the Justices for the exercise by them of their discretion under s 275.

Cases referred to

C v District Court at Dunedin (1993) 10 FRNZ 416
Police v James (a young person) (1991) 8 FRNZ 628
Police v W 7/9/94, Judge Brown, YC Whangarei
R v M and C (1985) 1 CRNZ 694 (CA)
S v District Court at New Plymouth (1992) 8 CRNZ 241

Application

This was an application for judicial review of a Youth Court decision ordering a family group conference to decide the appropriate forum for the plaintiff to be tried on a charge of aggravated robbery.