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

Police v BCS [1996] DCR 985 (DC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v BCS
Reported: [1996] DCR 985
File number: CRN 6243003239,3403
Date: 17 July 1996
Court: District Court
Location: New Plymouth
Judge: Harding DCJ
Charge: Sexual Violation; Indecent Assault
CYPFA: s283(o); s274; s275
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - Age; Purely Indictable Procedure

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Youth Court - Practice and procedure - Statutes - Interpretation - Ruling on power of Youth Court to commit a young person aged 14 years six months at the time of offending to the High Court or District Court for sentence, the young person having forgone his right to trial by jury - Whether there was jurisdiction for the Youth Court to send the young person to the High Court for sentence - Whether there was jurisdiction for the Youth Court to send the young person to the District Court for sentence - Children and Young Persons Act 1974, s 34 - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss2(2)274275283(o)

BCS, at the time of offending, was aged 14 years and six months. He was charged with sexual violation and indecent assault, the former being purely indictable. The preliminary hearing took place in the Youth Court before a District Court Judge, who found that there was sufficient evidence to put BCS on trial for sexual violation. BCS was given the opportunity of forgoing his rights to trial by jury, and did so. He pleaded guilty to both charges. After a family group conference, it was agreed that the appropriate jurisdiction for sentencing was the High Court.

The question was whether the Youth Court had power to commit BCS to the High Court for sentence, or alternatively to the District Court for sentence, because he had forgone his right to trial by jury and because of his age at the time of offending.

Held (ruling that the defendant should be dealt with in the Youth Court)

(1) Where a young person aged 14 years six months at the time of committing sexual violation and indecent assault offences (the former being a purely indictable offence) pleaded guilty after depositions to the offences; and, pursuant to s 275 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, the young person having been given the opportunity of forgoing his rights to trial by jury, which the young person accepted; there was no jurisdiction for the Youth Court to send the young person to the High Court for sentence. R v M (an accused) [1986] 2 NZLR 172, (1986) 1 CRNZ 694 (CA), considered and followed. S v New Plymouth District Court (1992) 8 CRNZ 241, considered.

(2) There was similarly no jurisdiction to send the young person to the District Court for sentence, because his age at the date of the offences, pursuant to s 283(o) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, "shall be that person’s age for the purpose of . . . The proceedings taken" (s 2(2) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act). The young person was under 15 years of age at the time of the offences, 15 years being the age at which a young person could be sent to the District Court.

Cases referred to in judgment

R v M (an accused) [1986] 2 NZLR 172, (1986) 1 CRNZ 694(CA)
S v New Plymouth District Court (1992) 8 CRNZ 241

Ruling

This was a ruling on whether, after a young person was given the opportunity of forgoing his right to trial by jury and elected to be dealt with in the Youth Court pursuant to s 275 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, he could be committed to the High Court or District Court for sentence.