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

BGTD by his Guardian Ad Litem LBMD v Youth Court at Rotorua & Police (15 March 2000) HC, Rotorua, M119/99, Robertson J

Name: BGTD by his Guardian Ad Litem LBMD v Youth Court at Rotorua & Police
Unreported
File number: M119/99
Date: 15 March 2000
Court: High Court
Location: Rotorua
Judge: Robertson J
CYPFA: s5(f); s322
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
Key Title: Delay

Summary: Unsuccessful application for judicial review of Court refusal of s322 CYPFA application. Alleged offending took place in August/November 1998, hearing October 1999 after the prosecution applied for adjournments. Applicant argued mistake of law as New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 principles applied rather than CYPFA policy, that the decision was unreasonable and that the Judge had considered irrelevant matters but had not regarded the effect of the delays on the applicant – a relevant consideration. Court obliged to balance individual rights against public interest. Held: Application dismissed. Court did not accept that s5(f) CYPFA should be elevated above all other issues; s322 requires a 2-step inquiry. First the Judge must determine whether the time between the date of the commission of the alleged offence and the hearing has been unnecessarily and unduly protracted. If it has, the Judge has the discretion as to whether or not to dismiss the complaint. Here, the Judge was not satisfied that the time had been unnecessarily and unduly protracted; reasons for the delay were explicable and thus not necessary for Judge to have considered exercise of discretion; no error to review. Judicial review is not an appeal mechanism or an opportunity for re-assessing factual matters.

Decision: Application for judicial review declined.