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

Police v S [2000] NZFLR 188; 19 FRNZ 72 (YC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v S
Reported: [2000] NZFLR 188; 19 FRNZ 72 (YC)
File number: CRN 992551752
Date: 14 February 2000
Court: Youth Court
Location: Papakura
Judge: Ryan DCJ
Charge:
CYPFA: s246; s281; s282
Key Title: Databank Compulsion Order; Discharge - s282; Orders - Discharge - s282

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Youth offenders - Blood samples - Databank compulsions order - Whether conviction entered - Section required a conviction to have been entered before jurisdiction arose to make compulsion order - Offender had not denied charge of burglary and was later discharged - Whether admission implied that Crown had proved charge - Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995, s 39 - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 246, 281, 282.

These proceedings concerned an opposed application under s 39 of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995 for a databank compulsion order. That section conferred jurisdiction to make an order where the young person had been convicted of an offence. Conviction was defined as a finding by the Youth Court that a charge against the young person was proved. The difficulty in these proceedings was that the offender had not denied the charge of burglary when brought before the Court pursuant to s 246 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The Youth Court jurisdiction was elected and it was noted that he admitted the charge. The information was adjourned and the offender was detained in the custody of the Director-General of Social Welfare. He was then further remanded for the completion of a plan agreed upon at a family group conference. Later the young person was discharged.

The police argued that the fact that the charge was not denied amounted to a conviction because the admission inferred that the charge had been proved. This was contended in spite of s 282 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act which provided that an information which was discharged was deemed never to have been laid. The application was opposed on the basis that the charge had not been proved and that under the s 246 procedure the Court did not have to make such a finding. It was also argued that the discharge of the young person under s 282 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act was equivalent to a discharge under s 19 of the Criminal Justice Act. Under that provision a databank compulsion order could not be made.

Held (declining to make an order)

(1) There was no jurisdiction to make an order in this case. Under s 246 the young person was required only to deny or not deny the charge. In this case the charge had not been denied. There was certainly no statutory requirement that the Court make a finding that the charge was proved. The same applied in respect of s 281 which did not create a requirement that the Court find that the charge was proved before discharging the young person. An admission by a person at a family group conference which was subsequently confirmed by the Youth Court was insufficient. There was a clear statutory intention to provide a mechanism for cases to be disposed of without the necessity for the charge to be proved.

(2) A discharge under s 282 was equivalent to a discharge under s 19 of the Criminal Justice Act and the same protection was to be afforded.

Application

This was an application for a databank compulsion order.