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

Police v Y (5 February 1999) YC, Otahuhu, CRN 8204003909, Harvey DCJ

Name: Police v Y
Unreported
File number: CRN 8204003909
Date: 5 February 1999
Court: Youth Court
Location: Otahuhu
Judge: Harvey DCJ
CYPFA: s275, 277
Charge: Kidnapping; Demanding with Menaces; Assault
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s275 offer/election; Adult co-offenders; Jointly charged with adult; Principles

Summary: Whether to offer YC Jurisdiction under s275 CYPFA; question of sentencing options available in the DC and their relevance to the matters that should be considered by a Judge in the exercise of the discretion under s275, including the principles of accountability and rehabilitation; discussion of sentencing options after a s283(o) transfer; discussion of de facto severance by the exercise of the discretion under s275. Y (16 at time of offence) and adult associate approached complainant outside his school; drove him to a beach location and threatened and intimidated him; alleged triad connection; complainant also the complainant in a previous matter currently before the Courts. Principles from Police v R & R and S (Unreported,12/6/90, YC, Upper Hutt, CRN 9278004028 & ors) and Police v S & M (1993) 11 FRNZ 322 considered in light of these facts particularly the public interest: Police v W (25 July 1998, YC, Otahuhu, CRN 8248016224, Carruthers DCJ). Where matter purely indictable and transferred to DC under s283(o) CYPFA, trial Judge does not have the option of considering the maximum sentences available under s28F District Courts Act 1947: R v M [1986] 2 NZLR 172. It follows then that in the absence of specific legislative authority enabling a District Court Judge to impose maximum sentences, the Court is cast back to s7 of the Summary Offences Act where the Judge’s sentencing powers are limited to a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. If Y is offered the discretion under s275 it will result in de facto severance; this factor should not predominate but it should be considered as an aspect of the public interest. Economy of time and money also not to be predominant but the desirability that the same verdict and the same treatment be returned against all concerned in the same offence must be important. Held: given the seriousness of this case; that Y has allegedly committed these crimes against the complainant who is the complainant in another case; the limited sentencing options in the YC given that Y nearly 17; the need for deterrence and particularly in light of the public interest, this matter should be dealt with in the HC. Principles surrounding severance taken into account.

Decision: YC jurisdiction declined.