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

Police v B (No 2) (20 June 1995) YC, Levin, CRN 524003780-3, Inglis DCJ

Name: Police v B (No 2)
Unreported
File number: CRN 524003780-3
Date: 20 June 1995
Court: Youth Court
Location: Levin
Judge: Inglis QC DCJ
CYPFA: s275; s321(1)
Charge: Sexual Violation; Indecent Assault
Key Title: Evidence

Summary: Whether videotaped evidence was admissible or whether the complainant should give the whole of his evidence-in-chief orally. B charged with sexual violation and indecent assault; Youth Court jurisdiction offered and accepted; complainant’s evidence had been videotaped; Counsel argued that Evidence Act, ss23D and 23E allowing the use of videotaped evidence not applicable to Youth Court proceedings which are summary proceedings by virtue of CYPFA s321(1); Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss60 and 67(4); Palmer v Attorney-General [1992] 3 NZLR 375 Hillyer J. Held: the Evidence Act ss23D to 23I was intended to protect young complainants from the embarrassment of giving oral evidence-in-chief in open Court; this protection potent for this complainant up until point where s275 election made; Judge would not accept that protection should be withdrawn simply because of the operation of s275, which in this case operated effectively to substitute trial in the Youth Court for trial by jury. The mode of trial seems immaterial to the principle and policy behind ss23D to 23I, especially as s23H expressly contemplates the possibility of trial by Judge alone. If unintentional gap exists, then the Court is entitled to bridge it: Northland Milk Vendors Assn Ltd v Northern Milk Ltd [1988] 1 NZLR 530, 537 (CA) Sir Robin Cooke P. Proceedings here not transformed into purely summary proceedings for the purposes of ss23D to 23I, as s321 incorporates the Summary Proceedings Act, Part II, but "with such modifications … as are necessary". One such necessary modification here is that a complainant’s evidence-in-chief need not be given orally, but may be given as prescribed by s23E.

Decision: Complainant’s evidence-in-chief to be given in the form of the videotape.