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

C v Police [2000] NZFLR 769; 17 CRNZ 448; 19 FRNZ 357 (HC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: C v Police
Reported: [2000] NZFLR 769; 17 CRNZ 448; 19 FRNZ 357 (HC)
File number: AP 45/00
Date: 13 June 2000
Court: High Court
Location: Hamilton
Judge: Hammond J
Charge: Burglary
CYPFA: s283(o)
Key Title: Youth Court procedure; Orders - Conviction and transfer to the District Courts - s283(o); Conviction and transfer to the District Court

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Children and young persons - Sentencing - Youth Court - Transfer to District Court for sentencing - Charges "not denied" by young person - Whether offences had been "proved" for the purposes of s 283(o) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 - Whether convictions could be properly entered on the plea of "not denied" - How criminal offence can be "proved" - Defect of jurisdiction in this case not able to be cured by s 440 - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 238, 259, 283, 351, 440 - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 6, 25 - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 67.

The young person (C), aged 16, committed a series of crimes, including close to forty burglaries, between April 1999 and March 2000. When he appeared in the Youth Court it was said on his behalf that the charges were "not denied" and a notation to that effect was made on the informations. The police argued for all matters to be transferred to the District Court for sentencing.

The Youth Court Judge took the view that C’s offending was serious, constant, and unchecked and that he had no alternative but to send C to the District Court. The informations were then embossed by the Judge with a stamp that C was "convicted and transferred to the District Court". Subsequently some further informations were laid and the charge noted as having been "admitted" and these informations were also removed to the District Court for sentence.

C appealed against the transfer on the basis that the charges against him had not been "proved" and that therefore a conviction could not be properly entered.

Held (allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the District Court for proper pleas to be taken)

(1) A criminal charge was "proved" in one of two ways. Either it was proved by evidence led by the prosecution, which, in the view of the trier of fact comes up to the criminal law standard of proof. Or, the person charged "acknowledges" the crime. The use of the term "not denied" could not support the entry of a conviction. Therefore there had been a fundamental defect of jurisdiction which could not be cured by s 440 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

(2) By that point of time at which the Judge was considering whether to remove the youth to the District Court for sentence, the youth must have been formally asked how he pleads, that is guilty or not guilty. It is only if he pleads "guilty" or the charge has been proved by evidence, that the Youth Court Judge can properly enter a conviction and transfer him to the District Court for sentence.

Case referred to in judgment

R v Jessop (Court of Appeal CA 404/98, 2 March 1999)

Appeal

This was an appeal against a decision of a Youth Court Judge to transfer a youth to the District Court for sentence when the offences with which he was charged had not been "proved" for the purposes of s 283(o) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.