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

Police v B (6 October 1999) YC, Hamilton, CRN 9219024334/24318-9, Twaddle DCJ

Name: Police v B
Unreported
File number: CRN 9219024334/24318-9
Date: 6 October 1999
Court: Youth Court
Location: Hamilton
Judge: Twaddle DCJ
CYPFA: s5(f); s322
Charge: Sexual Violation; Indecent Assault
Key Title: Delay

Summary: B (14 at time of alleged offences) charged with sexually violating a female and two charges of indecent assault of a 9-year-old girl; charges denied; application to dismiss charges on grounds that time elapsed between offences and hearing unnecessarily and unduly protracted pursuant to s322 CYPFA. Complaint made on 20/11/98, hearing date still not set on 6/10/99. Nine months of this delay due to Police workloads, annual leave, unavailability of suitable nominated person. Section 5(f); s322 CYPFA; Police v C (Undated, circa 1990, YC, Wellington, CR 0285015569, Carruthers DCJ) and Police v BRR (1993) 11 FRNZ 23l discussed; also R v Mackenzie (20 June 1995, YC, Blenheim, CRN 4218004914, McAloon J) where Martin v DC Tauranga 12 CRNZ 509 and Bill of Rights Act 1990, s25(b) referred to: "the fact that delay is systemic does not justify it", McAloon J in R v Mackenzie adopted this statement as relevant to s322 delay and added that the seriousness of the offending does not have any relevance to the exercise of the discretion under s322. Held: Delay of nine months between file being received and Informations being laid unnecessary. Taking into account the length of the delay to date and that by the time of the hearing the delay will be more than 15 months and having regard to s5(f), delay would be unduly protracted and unnecessary; no need for any particular criticism for finding that passage of time unduly protracted.

Decision: Information dismissed.