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

R v Karoa, Afoa and Charlie (28 August 1995) HC, Auckland, T 17-18/95; T 76/95, Anderson J

Name: R v Karoa, Afoa and Charlie
Unreported
File Number: T 17-18/95; T 76/95
Date: 28 August 1995
Court: High Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: Anderson J
Charge:
CYPFA: s215, s221, s222, s224
Key Title: Admissibility of Evidence; Nominated Person; Rights; Explanation of rights; Reasonable compliance

Summary: Accused (16) and others arrested; rights explained to accused; accused indicated he understood but did not make a request for a support person or to contact family members; officer explained that he could have support person or family member present during interview; officer’s evidence is that accused said "no"; duty solicitor discussed matters with accused relating to his rights and gave another officer instructions that the accused did not wish to give samples or answer questions without lawyer present; after solicitor left the station the young person was interviewed; the next morning the accused indicated that he wishes to confess. Judge says that ordinarily the evidence would be admissible but he has to consider CYPFA; following the requirements of the Act the accused was entitled to know that he could nominate a family member for the purpose of the interview; or to have a solicitor present; Judge finds that he was not made aware of this; not compliance to have a stranger in the room and to be informed that this is the young person’s nominated person; no "reasonable compliance" and evidence is inadmissible.

Decision: Evidence inadmissible.