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

Police v DH [1995] NZFLR 473 (YC)

Name: Police v DH
Reported: [1995] NZFLR 473
File number: CRN 4290021633
Date: 25 January 1995
Court: Youth Court
Location: Henderson
Judge: Harvey DCJ
CYPFA: s5(f), s322
Charge: Indecent Assault
Key Title: Delay

Summary: D (16 at time of offence) now almost 18; charged with indecent assault; charge denied. Offence allegedly took place on 18/6/93; considerable delays; matter set for hearing in the week of 25/1/95. Application to dismiss the information pursuant to s322 CYPFA; whether delays unnecessary or undue. Section 5(f) timeframe includes the words "wherever practicable", so this is not an absolute requirement; there may be certain external factors which may impact upon the ability to swiftly dispose of cases; including human difficulties and systemic difficulties within bureaucracies, such as Social Welfare, the Police and the Courts. BRR v Police 11 FRNZ 25: necessary for some explanation for the delay; Police v C (Undated, YC Wellington, CRN 0285015569, Judge Carruthers) considered. Held: "Unnecessary" per s322 CYPFA, connotes an action should have been taken which was not or there is some lack of explanation for an action; here, explanations have been given for the delays considering the nature of the offence, the investigative steps undertaken quite properly by Social Welfare, the Police, the necessity for a FGC prior to the laying of the information and the difficulties attendant upon the laid information. The delays have not been unnecessarily protracted. The law in this particular type of case is designed to protect as much the complainant as the defendant. When considering whether delays have been unduly protracted the Court must consider the question of prejudice to the defendant. Here, the defendant’s ability to prepare his defence has not been prejudiced.

Decision: Application refused.