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

W v The Registrar of the Youth Court (Tokoroa) (CA) [1999] NZFLR 1000; 18 FRNZ 433

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: W v The Registrar of the Youth Court (Tokoroa)
Reported: [1999] NZFLR 1000; 18 FRNZ 433
File number: CA 166/99
Date: 23 September 1999
Court: Court of Appeal
Location: Wellington
Judge: Thomas, Gallen and Doogue JJ
Charge: Robbery; Aggravated Robbery
CYPFA: s4; s5; s276
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s276 offer/election; Objects; Principles

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Youth offenders - Appeal - High Court decision confirming decision of the Youth Court refusing to allow nine youths to be dealt with in the Youth Court and referring them to the District Court for sentencing - Youth Court Judge had considered it against public interest for the youths to be dealt with in the Youth Court - Serious offending by youths - Whether the Judge had sufficient regard to the general principles of youth justice - Whether the Judge had separately considered the circumstances of each of the youths - Comments concerning jurisdiction to appeal the exercise of the Youth Court Judge’s discretion - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 4, 5, 276(2).

The nine appellants in this case were all youths who had been charged with serious robbery and aggravated robbery offences in the Tokoroa region and who had appeared before a Youth Court Judge on the same day. For reasons primarily concerned with the public interest, the Youth Court Judge exercised his discretion to refuse to allow the youths to be dealt with in the Youth Court and referred them to the District Court for sentencing. The appellants had subsequently appealed to the High Court where it was held that the Youth Court Judge had not erred in the exercise of his discretion. The High Court considered that the Youth Court Judge had been at pains to consider each appellant’s case on its merits. The appellants appealed the High Court decision, by way of judicial review, to the Court of Appeal. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Youth Court Judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion by having insufficient regard to the general principles of youth justice, by not separately considering the circumstances of each of the youths, by not adequately considering the wide range of sentencing options available in the Youth Court and by placing too much weight on considerations relating to the public interest.

Held (dismissing the appeal)

(1) The Youth Court Judge was not in error in deciding, in the exercise of his discretion, to decline jurisdiction and refer the offenders to the District Court for sentencing; the Youth Court Judge had not given insufficient weight to the principles of youth justice. Whilst the emphasis of the Act is on restorative justice and the rehabilitation of young offenders there is also recognition in the legislation and case law that serious offending may call for stronger penalties than the Act provides. The Youth Court Judge had not failed to adequately consider the wide range of sentencing options available in the Youth Court and had had regard to the options available in the District Court. Although he did not deal with the nine youths separately, the Youth Court Judge had not failed to consider the case of each youth. The circumstances of each offender had been addressed and differences in culpability and attitude amongst them had been recognised. The Youth Court Judge had not given undue regard to the public interest. The Judge had been entitled to conclude that violent offending by youths in the Tokoroa area had reached alarming levels.

(2) There was merit in the Youth Court Judge’s expressed view that it would be preferable for the same District Court Judge to hear and determine the sentences of all offenders.

(3) There is no jurisdiction to challenge the exercise of a Youth Court Judge’s discretion under s 276(2) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act by way of appeal.

Cases referred to in judgment

Cooper v Police (High Court, Hamilton, AP 106/98, 12 November 1998)
R v M and C (1985) 1 CRNZ 694
R v P (High Court, Auckland, S 89/90, 14 September 1990, Gault J)
R v Police (1990) 6 FRNZ 538
S v District Court at New Plymouth (1992) 9 FRNZ 57

Appeal

This was an appeal by way of judicial review from a decision of the High Court upholding a Youth Court Judge’s decision to refer nine youth offenders to the District Court for sentencing.