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

Police v I [a young person] (1999) 18 FRNZ 185; also reported as Police v M [1999] NZFLR 588 (DC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Police v I [a young person]
Reported: (1999) 18 FRNZ 185; also reported as Police v M [1999] NZFLR 588
File number: CRN8209004448
Date: 19 February 1999
Court: District Court
Location: Christchurch
Judge: Strettell DCJ
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
CYPFA: (2) s2; (2) s283(o); (3) s275
Key Title: (2) Jurisdiction of the Youth Court – Age; (2) Conviction and transfer to District Court; (2) Orders – Conviction and transfer to District Court for sentence – s283(o)

BROOKERS Summary:

Youth justice - Jurisdiction - 15-year-old young person charged with aggravated robberies committed when aged 14 - Judge's jurisdiction to make order under s 283(o) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act transferring young person to District Court for sentence - No jurisdiction to transfer where young person under 15 at time of offending - Appropriateness of sentencing options - Importance of rehabilitation goals for young offenders - Option to hear and determine case in Youth Court - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2(2), 283; Criminal Justice Act 1985, ss 4(2), 8.

I, a 15-year-old young person, faced two counts of aggravated robbery committed when he was 14 years old. The police opposed a family group conference recommendation that I be dealt with in the Youth Court and sought his transfer to the High Court for sentence. The Judge initially permitted I to remain in the Youth Court. He considered that s 283(o) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 allows the Court to make an order convicting a person 15 years old or over and ordering that person to be brought before a District Court for sentence. The Judge considered a transfer to the High Court inappropriate as a sentence of more than 5 years' imprisonment was unlikely.

The police applied for a rehearing. They claimed the Judge had no discretion to transfer I to the District Court for sentence and that the sentencing options in the Youth Court were inadequate to deal with such serious offences.

Held, allowing I to elect to have the information heard and determined in the Youth Court:

(1) In the absence of any words limiting its scope, the meaning of s 4(2) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 is plain and unambiguous. It is that the only penalties which may be imposed on an offender are those available at the time of the offence. The inclusion of the words "against the offender" make it plain that the Legislature had in mind the personal characteristics of an offender, including his or her age. (p 188, line 40)

(2) Where a young person, who has been given the option of being dealt with in the Youth Court, was 14 years old at the time of the offence but is 15 at the time of sentence, a Youth Court Judge has no power to convict the young person and transfer him or her to the District Court for sentence. If Parliament had chosen to make the application of s 283(o) dependent on the young person's age at sentence, it would have been a simple matter for the section to say so. (p 189, line 41)

Police v Edge [1993] 2 NZLR 7; (1992) 9 FRNZ 659 (CA)

Police v W [1995] DCR 756 considered[(1999) 18 FRNZ 185, 186]Police v S [1996] NZFLR 906 distinguished

(3) Where the exercise of a Court's discretion to allow a young person to be dealt with in a Youth Court is shown to be based on an erroneous understanding of the law, the Court has the inherent power to rehear the matter and execute its discretion based on a proper understanding of the law. (p 190, line 15)

(4) The Court's jurisdiction to make orders is limited by s 283 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. Transfer to the High Court is not available under this section. The custodial sentencing options available to the Court are limited to residence with supervision, which may not reflect the nature and gravity of the offending. (p 190, line 28)

(5) If I admitted the charges and was declined the right to remain in the Youth Court, he would be transferred to the District Court for sentence. (p 191, line 7)

(6) In exercising its discretion under s 275 to allow a young person to have proceedings dealt with in a Youth Court, the Court must have regard to a number of factors. The seriousness of the offence alone is not determinative. Although the seriousness of these offences and I's part in them could not be doubted, I and his family had clearly approached the matter seriously and appropriately. They were conscious of I's obligation to be accountable for his actions. Although the robberies were traumatic for the victims they had not objected to the outcome and recommendations of the family group conference. (p 191, line 42; p 192, line 41)

(7) Rehabilitation of 15-year-olds must be a high priority in any sentencing process. As I was a first offender, the Youth Court, although limited as to length of sentence, had jurisdiction in relation to I for a further 2 years. It was open for further follow-up, such as counselling, to be available outside the specific sentencing options, and I's family appeared to support this. On balance it was appropriate to grant I the opportunity to have the information heard and determined in the Youth Court. (p 193, line 1)

Cases referred to

Police v Edge [1993] 2 NZLR 7; (1992) 9 FRNZ 659 (CA)
Police v J 24/6/91, Judge Harvey, YC Otahuhu
Police v Richard 12/6/90, Judge Lee, YC Upper Hutt
Police v S [1996] NZFLR 906
Police v W (1990) 6 FRNZ 711
Police v W [1995] DCR 756
S v District Court at New Plymouth [1992] 3 NZLR 508; (1992) 9 FRNZ 57; 8 CRNZ 241

Rehearing

This was a rehearing of a Judge's decision to allow a young person charged with armed robbery to have his case heard and determined in the Youth Court.