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

Police v S [1996] NZFLR 906 (DC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v S
Reported: [1996] NZFLR 906
File number: CRN 6243003239,3403
Date: 12 July 1996
Court: District Court
Location: New Plymouth
Judge: Harding DCJ
Charge: Sexual Violation; Indecent Assault
CYPF no: s274; s275
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s275 offer/election; Purely Indictable Procedure
LEXISNEXIS NZ Summary:

Children and young persons - Charges of sexual violation and indecent assault - Matter heard in Youth Court through choice - Appropriate jurisdiction for sentencing - Whether Youth Court had jurisdiction to remand to High Court for sentencing - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 274, 275, 283(o) Children and Young Persons Act 1974, ss 34, 36; Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 44, 185(B), Part V.

The defendant was 14 years and 6 months at the time he committed the offences. In January 1996 he was charged with sexual violation and indecent assault. Because the sexual violation charge was a purely indictable one, s 274 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 applied and the preliminary hearing took place according to Part V of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, except that it took place in a Youth Court. The Court was of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial and this brought s 275 into play. The defendant was given the opportunity of forgoing his rights to trial by jury and electing to have the matter heard in the Youth Court; he elected to have the matter heard in the Youth Court. The defendant entered guilty pleas in respect of both charges. The matter was remanded for a family group conference and decision as to the jurisdiction for sentencing. All those at the family group conference agreed that the appropriate jurisdiction for sentencing was the High Court. The case returned to the Youth Court following a query as to its jurisdiction to remand to the High Court for sentencing. Page 907; [1996] NZFLR 906

Held (declining jurisdiction to remand to the High Court)

(1) For the reasons set out in R v M [1986] 2 NZLR 172 there was no jurisdiction for the Court to send the defendant to the High Court for sentencing.

(2) Similarly there was no jurisdiction to send the defendant to the District Court for sentencing, as the defendant was 14 years old when he committed the offence.

Cases referred to in judgment

R v M [1986] 2 NZLR 172; (1986) 1 CRNZ 694
S v District Court at New Plymouth (1992) 8 CRNZ 241

Application

This was an application to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for sentencing a young offender.