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

Police v WF and MR [1996] NZFLR 644 (YC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v WF and MR
Reported: [1996] NZFLR 644
File number: CRN 620400332427
Date: 23 May 1996
Court: Youth Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: McElrea DCJ
Charge: Attempted Unlawful Interference with a Motor Vehicle
CYPF no: s215; s221; s222; s235
Key Title: Evidence; Admissibility of Statements; Nominated Persons; Questioning by Police; Arrest without Warrant
LEXISNEXIS NZ Summary:

Evidence - Admissibility of videotaped interviews of young persons - Young persons detained for questioning without arrest - No general power to detain - Evidence obtained unlawfully - Role of nominated person - Obligation of police to explain role of nominated person - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 215, 221, 222, 229, 231, 234, 235.

The two young persons had been taken to the police station for questioning in relation to attempted unlawful interference with a motor vehicle. They were not placed under arrest but were told by the police that they "would not be going anywhere" after one had said she wanted to go home. The mother of one of the young persons was asked to come down to the station but was not told anything about the child's rights or about her role as a nominated person.

Charges followed. The young persons challenged the admissibility of their statements obtained by way of video.

Held (ruling that the evidence was inadmissible)

(1) The evidence was obtained in breach of the rights of the young persons under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. It was also obtained in breach of the rule that the police have no authority to hold persons for questioning against their will. There had been no statutory basis for the police to advise them that they were not going anywhere. Unless s 235 applied and the police believed, or had reasonable grounds for believing, that the young people were unlikely to appear before the Court or might commit further offences or might interfere with evidence, the young persons were free to return home.

(2) If a young person said he or she wanted to leave, that amounted to withdrawing of consent, at which point the police were obliged to allow the young person to leave unless they were going to make an arrest.

(3) The police had a statutory obligation to ensure that the nominated person was informed of the matters specified in paragraphs (c) to (f) of s 215(1) of the Act, which included the right to withdraw consent to making a statement;

Page 645; [1996] NZFLR 644. Further, the police should ensure that the nominated person is aware of his or her role under the statute and is thereby enabled to perform that role.

Case referred to in judgment

R v Goodwin (No 1) [1993] 2 NZLR 153

Application

This was an application for a ruling as to the admissibility of evidence of two young persons obtained by video.