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

Police v R (2000) 19 FRNZ 590 (YC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Police v R
Reported: (2000) 19 FRNZ 590; Police v JR [2001] NZFLR 49; also reported as Police v Rangihika [2000] DCR 866
File number: CRN 0255019855
Date: 8 September 2000
Court: Youth Court
Location: Pukekohe
Judge: McElrea DCJ
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
CYPFA: s4; s5; s283(o)
Key Title: Sentencing in the adult Courts - application of Youth Court principles; Conviction and transfer to the District Court; Orders - Conviction and transfer to the District Court for sentencing; Orders - Supervision with Residence - s283(n); Objects; Principles

BROOKERS Summary:

Youth justice - Sentence - Transfer of proceeding - Aggravated robbery - Different sentencing regime provided for young people - Application of Criminal Justice Act regime - No automatic assumption that aggravated robbery must be dealt with in District Court - Offender could be effectively dealt with in Youth Court - Supervision with residence appropriate given seriousness of crime and defendant's involvement - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 4, 208, 283(o), 284, 290; Criminal Justice Act 1985.

The accused, R, had been a party to an aggravated robbery at the age of 15 years. Having previously obtained a soft airgun which was a replica of a semi-automatic pistol, he travelled to Central Auckland with his co-accused, T, and two female associates. They discussed committing a robbery but failed to find any suitable victims so decided to rob a 24-hour service station store. T approached the only staff member, pointed the pistol at him, and held him around the neck. R went to the cash register. As he could not open it, he removed the unit and left the store. When the victim tried to break free, T struck him on the head with the pistol and kicked him. T and R forced open the cash register and shared the $2,500 they found there between themselves.

The victim had been badly affected by the incident and had given up his job as a result. R had admitted guilt and written a letter of apology, and his family had offered to make reparation. He had no previous Court appearances, and his family hoped to support a programme which would keep him out of prison and further trouble. A family group conference failed to reach agreement on whether R should be sentenced in the Youth Court or convicted and transferred to the District Court.

Held, sentencing R to supervision with residence:

(1) The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 has its own special sentencing regime for young people. It is a very different sentencing regime from that applying to persons 17 years and over under the Criminal Justice Act 1985. However, if a young person is convicted and transferred to the District Court, the Court of Appeal's comments in R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170; (2000) 17 CRNZ 272 concerning sentences for armed robbery are very relevant. While there may still be room for suspended terms of imprisonment coupled with community-based sentences in some cases, it could not be assumed that a case like the present would receive such treatment. (p 592, line 31)

R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170; (2000) 17 CRNZ 272 considered

(2) There is no automatic assumption that an aggravated robbery case must be dealt with in the District Court. While there were aggravated robbery cases where [(2000) 19 FRNZ 600, 591]only a term of imprisonment was appropriate, this was not, on balance, such a case. R was not so close to age 17 that there was no time left for him to be dealt with under Youth Court principles, and he did not have a previous record which suggested he was incapable of being dealt with in the Youth Court. (p 596, line 10)

(3) R should be treated as principal offender. However, the weapon used was not a real firearm, though just as terrifying for the victim, and the risk of injury was not the same. There had been minimal planning, and the degree of physical violence was not great. R's share of reparation could be made in full. Acknowledging the need to protect vulnerable employees of such businesses, R could be dealt with in the Youth Court by a sentence of 3 months at a Department of Child, Youth and Family Services residence followed by 6 months' supervision, the most serious form of sentence the Youth Court could impose. (p 596, line 25)

Cases referred to

R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170; (2000) 17 CRNZ 272

Sentence

This was a hearing to determine whether the offender should be sentenced in the Youth Court or convicted and transferred to the District Court for sentence under s 283(o) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.