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

Police v C [2000] NZFLR 961; 19 FRNZ 715 (YC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v C
Reported: [2000] NZFLR 961; 19 FRNZ 715
File number:
Date: 8 August 2000
Court: Youth Court
Location: Otahuhu
Judge: Carruthers DCJ
Charge: Sexual Violation
CYPFA: s245; s322
Key Title: Delay

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Children and young persons - Application for dismissal of information - Young person charged with offence of sexual violation - Delay of seventeen months in charging the young person - Whether information should be dismissed for unnecessary and undue delay - Necessity for consultation prior to proceedings being instituted - Necessity for consultation - Meaning of "consultation" - Whether delay too great in this case - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 56, 208, 245, 247, 249, 322.

The defendant, aged 16 at the time of the offence and now aged 17, was charged with sexual violation by unlawful connection which was an indictable charge. It was alleged that the offence occurred in January 1999. In June 1999 a complaint was laid with the police. The complaint file was sent to the local Child Abuse team and an investigation was commenced. A referral was made to the Child, Youth and Family Services department in August 1999 and subsequently consultations occurred between the Police and the Service which continued until November 1999, A family group conference was held on 8 November 1999 and it was agreed that the young person would complete a six month plan that included counselling. The family group conference was reconvened in June 2000 following the raising of concerns about the young person by the counselling service. The conference agreed that the charge should be laid in the Youth Court and that matters should then be referred to the District Court because the young person was then 17 years of age.

Counsel for the young person argued that the information should be dismissed due to unnecessary and undue delay in bringing the matter before the Court.

Held (dismissing the information)

(1) Section 245 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 provided that proceedings were not to be instituted against a young person unless the Youth Justice Co-ordinator and the informant had been consulted and the matter considered at a family group conference. Consultation under the Act required a genuine attempt to confer with an open mind about other possibilities of intervening. There would be occasions when, for extraordinary reasons which would have involved obtaining a number of assessments and reports, a consultation may take the length of time taken in this case. Therefore the extraordinary length of time taken did not in the circumstances invalidate a proper "consultation" within the meaning of the Act.

(2) Whilst there were no strict time limits involved, the actions in this case in laying and proceeding with the information had been unnecessarily and unduly protracted. Given this and because the public interest would be better served by applying to have the young person made a ward of Court, the information would be dismissed.

Cases referred to in judgment

BGTD v Youth Court at Rotorua and Police (High Court, Rotorua M 119/99, 15 March 2000, Robertson J)
H v Police [1999] NZFLR 966
Police v K (Youth Court, Otahuhu, 3 August 2000, Judge Ryan)
Port Louis Corporation v Attorney-General of Mauritius [1965] AC 1111
Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air New Zealand Ltd [1993] 1 NZLR 671 (CA)

Application

This was an application for the dismissal of an information laid against a young person on the ground of unnecessary and undue delay.