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

Police v Prime [2000] DCR 698

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v Prime
Reported: [2000] DCR 698
File number: CR9048010748
Date: 16 August 2000
Court: District Court
Location: Otahuhu
Judge: Clapham DCJ
Charge: Driving with Excess Blood Alcohol
CYPFA: s2; s272
Key Title: Youth Court procedure; Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - Age

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Children and young persons - Jurisdiction - Driving with excess blood alcohol - Application to determine if information was a nullity because it was laid in the District Court rather than the Youth Court - Whether proceedings invalid because defendant should have been dealt with in the Youth Court - Interpretation of s 205 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 - Whether a technicality as to filing an information in the District Court rather than the Youth Court should be determinative - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2,272 - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 14,205 - Interpretation Act 1999, s 5.

Statutes - Interpretation - Jurisdiction - Application to determine if information was a nullity because it was laid in the District Court rather than the Youth Court - Whether a technicality as to filing an information in the District Court rather than the Youth Court should be determinative - Interpretation of s 205 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 14,205 - Interpretation Act 1999, s 5.

The defendant who was born on 3 January 1982 was charged in the District Court that on 18 December 1998, he was driving a motor vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his blood was excessive. He was only 16 at the time of the alleged offence.

The defendant first appeared before the Court on 29 March 1999 and was then variously remanded for a substantial period.

Because of the defendant’s date of birth the information should have been laid in the Youth Court rather than the District Court. Clearly, the defendant was a "young person" in terms of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

The prosecution accepted that it relied on s 205 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The prosecution submitted that in terms of that section no conviction, order, other process or proceeding should be held invalid by reason only that at the time a defendant was convicted he or she should have been dealt with in the Youth Court. The prosecution submitted that the section should not be read as being limited to instances where the defendant had been convicted, and applied prior to conviction.

Held (finding the information valid)

(1) Section 205 of the Summary Proceedings Act by use of the words "proceedings not invalid because defendant should have been dealt with in Youth Court" required those words should be given the intention that they meant, namely, that the information falling within the definition of proceedings, if the defendant should have been dealt with in the Youth Court but was not, did not render the proceedings invalid.

Police v Dabrowski [1996] NZFLR 234, [1996] DCR 40, considered and distinguished.

(2) The words "no conviction" in subs 205(1) was clearly an alternative to order, other process or proceedings. The words "no conviction" were not determinative of the words "order", "other process" or "proceeding". The direction of restriction within the subsection was that the proceedings should not be held invalid by reason only that at the time the defendant was convicted he or she should by reason of his or her age have been dealt with in the Youth Court.

(3) No conviction had been entered. There was no requirement as provided in s 205(2) to grant a rehearing. The proceedings themselves were not invalid. The technicality as to filing in the District Court as opposed to changing the heading of the information so that it was filed in the Youth Court should not be a factor that was determinative of the proceedings.

Case referred to in judgment

Police v Dabrowski [1996] NZFLR 234; [1996] DCR 40

Argument

This was an argument as to whether or not an information was invalid because at the time of the alleged offence the defendant was entitled to be dealt with in the Youth Court, the information having been laid in the District Court. Section 205 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was relied on.

References

See District Courts Practice (Criminal) para CYS 272.4-5, 272.10;para SS 14.7, 205.3

R A Turner for the defendant