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

U v R [1995] NZFLR 966 (HC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: U v R
Reported: [1995] NZFLR 966
File number: T 27/94
Date: 7 September 1995
Court: High Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: Tompkins J
Charge: Rape
CYPF no: s5
Key Title: Delay; Objects; Reports - Psychological
LEXISNEXIS NZ Summary:

Children and young persons - Criminal proceedings - Delay in trial - Reason for delay systemic - Application for order that no indictment be presented and that proceedings be stayed - Whether accused's right to a trial without undue delay had been breached - Relevant legal principles - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 25; Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 5, 275.

The applicant, who had been aged 16 years 9 months at the time of the alleged offence, had been awaiting trial on a charge of rape for just over 13 months. The main cause of delay was the lack of judicial resources in the High Court at New Plymouth. However the Government was aware of the problem and was taking steps to deal with it, including making more judicial time available.

The applicant applied for an order that no indictment be presented on the ground of undue delay in the trial. Evidence was given by a psychologist as to the disadvantages suffered by the applicant if giving evidence in Court after this length of time.

Held (dismissing the application)

(1) Weighing up the relevant factors, that was the length of the delay, waiver, the reasons for the delay and prejudice to the accused, and having particular regard to the applicant's age and the consequences of a 13 month delay in trial on him, it could not be said that his right to be tried without undue delay had been breached. Although the applicant had found the period stressful and the time that had elapsed was going to make the difficult experience of giving evidence more difficult than it would have been had the trial taken place earlier, there was doubt that these characteristics were due solely to delay beyond what might otherwise have been regarded as reasonable.

(2) The means being taken by Government to address the lack of adequate resources was a factor to be weighed in deciding whether delay can fairly be described as undue.

Cases referred to in judgment

Martin v Tauranga District Court [1995] 2 NZLR 419
Mills v Queen (1986) 26 CCC (3d) 481‡
Page 967; [1995] NZFLR 966
Queen v Morin (1992) CCC (3d) 1
R v Queen (1992) 71 CCC (3d) 1

Application

This was an application for an order under s 25(6) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that no indictment be presented and that the proceedings be stayed.