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

R v T [1997] 1 NZLR 341; [1996] NZFLR 961; 14 FRNZ 705

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: R v T
Reported: [1997] 1 NZLR 341; [1996] NZFLR 961; 14 FRNZ 705
File number: T17/96
Date: 11 September 1996
Court: High Court
Location: Rotorua
Judge: Baragwanath J
Charge: Attempted Murder; Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent; Aggravated Burglary
CYPFA: s208(h); s215; s221; s222
Key Title: Admissibility of statements; Nominated Persons; Rights; Principles

BROOKERS Summary:

Children, young persons, and their families – Rights – Young person charged with attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and aggravated burglary - Videotaped interview by police with accused - Respondent informed of his right to have nominated person present during interview - Respondent's father not available - Numerous attempts made to contact persons from nominated persons' list - Police eventually contacted duty social worker and asked him to "sit in" on the interview with the respondent - Social worker had no private consultation with respondent - Statutory responsibilities of nominated person - Whether right of private consultation if relevant nomination is made by police officer - Whether videotaped interview admissible - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 208(h), 215(1)(f), 221, 222(3).

The respondent, T, was charged with attempted murder or, alternatively, causing grievous bodily harm, and with aggravated burglary. On 5 November 1996 a police officer spoke with T's father advising him that he wished to speak to T and asking the father if he would be T's nominated person during the police interview with the respondent. T's father declined, explaining that he had been having difficulties with his son who was regularly sniffing solvents and abusing alcohol. The father was the only parent living with T. Later that day a detective called at T's home and found him at the back of the house sniffing petrol. T appeared to be somewhat affected by the petrol sniffing. He accompanied the detective to the police station.

At the police station T was shown a list of persons who made themselves available for interviews in the absence of a "nominated person". When T approved the list, the detective attempted unsuccessfully to contact the listed persons. Eventually the detective told T that he would try to contact the duty social worker. T raised no objection. The duty social worker was contacted and agreed to "sit in" on the interview between T and the police. T did not have a private consultation with the duty social worker before the interview.

T contended that as he was not given the opportunity to consult with the nominated person the subsequent videotaped interview was inadmissible. The Crown applied to have the interview tape admitted as evidence, arguing that as the relevant nomination was made by the detective, and not T, there was no right of private consultation.

Held, declining the application: The principle of s 208(h) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 recognises the vulnerability of young persons and calls for their special protection. Accordingly ss 215(1)(f) and 222(3) [(1996) 14 FRNZ 705, 706] Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 must be read as providing the same obligations for nominated persons whether they are nominated by the young person or by an enforcement officer. The respondent faced his interview without the active protection contemplated by Parliament as part of a nominated person's role. The statement was therefore inadmissible in terms of s 222. (p 712, line 32; p 713, line 34)

Police v Turipa 3/2/94, Judge Callander, DC Tauranga CRN3270010963 approved

Statutes and regulations referred to

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 208(h), 215(1)(f), 221, 222(3)

Cases referred to

Northland Milk Vendors Assn Inc v Northern Milk Ltd [1988] 1 NZLR 530 (CA)
Police v Turipa 3/2/94, Judge Callander, DC Tauranga CRN32700109
R v Accused (CA311/91) (1991) 7 CRNZ 539 (CA)
R v Coleman 15/3/96, Baragwanath J, HC Whangarei T88-92/95
R v Fitzgerald 30/10/90, Thorp J, HC Auckland T183/90
R v Irwin (1991) 8 FRNZ 487 (HC)

Application

This was an application to have a video interview adduced in evidence.