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

Police v TLA [2000] DCR 240 (DC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v TLA
Reported: [2000] DCR 240
File number: CRN 9204003881, 3885; 9204003887,3880; 9204003878, 3886
Date: 7 February 2000
Court: District Court
Location: Auckland
Judge: McElrea DCJ
Charge: Assault; Robbery
CYPFA: s283(o); s275
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s275 offer/election; General principles of sentencing eg Parity/Jurisdiction

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Criminal law - Jurisdiction - Offence of assault and robbery - Accused aged 14 and 15 - Whether to exercise Youth Court Judge’s discretion and give accused opportunity of forgoing right to jury trial and of electing to have information heard and determined in Youth Court - Alleged accomplice giving evidence for prosecution - Serious assault on innocent victim - Youth Court sanctions not appropriate for youngest and principal offender - Severance not appropriate - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 275,283(o) - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 173(a).

Children and young persons - Assault - Accused aged 14 and 15 - Whether to exercise Youth Court Judge’s discretion and give accused opportunity of forgoing right to jury trial and of electing to have information heard and determined in Youth Court - Youth Court sanctions not appropriate for youngest and principal offender - Severance not appropriate - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 275,283(o).

It was alleged that on 12 August 1999 the three accused and an accomplice, who later gave evidence for the Crown, attacked a girl when she was sitting in a public place. She was punched in the head and body and after falling to the ground, was kicked in the body. The victim was then dragged by her hair to the rear of a nearby building and robbed of $10. Punching to her head and body continued while more money was demanded. She was then dragged into nearby ladies toilets where scissors were taken out of her bag and used as a weapon against her. When she said that she had no more money, one of the accused cut her across her eyebrow. She was then cut across her stomach and also along her right thigh. All three accused denied a joint charge of assault using scissors as a weapon. They were also charged jointly with robbery. Two of the accused were aged 14 and one was aged 15 at the time of the offending, although one of the 14 year-olds had turned 15 by the time of the hearing. Under s 275 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 a Youth Court Judge has a discretion to give an accused the opportunity of forgoing the right to trial by jury and of electing to have the information heard and determined in a Youth Court by a Youth Court Judge. The Crown opposed the giving of such an opportunity and the splitting of trials or hearings.

Held (declining Youth Court jurisdiction)

(1) The disadvantages of having two hearings were especially strong in this case given the ages of the complainant and the witness/accomplice. They should be spared the possibility of giving evidence twice.

(2) The appropriate range of sentences that might be considered by the Court, depending on the facts, matters yet to be put before the Court by way of victim impact statements and pre-sentence or social worker reports, was best secured by declining Youth Court jurisdiction and leaving those matters to be dealt with by Judge and jury.

Cases referred to in judgment

Police v M [1990] DCR 544
Police v S and M (1993) 11 FRNZ 322

Application

This was an application to have a joint charge of assault to be heard in the Youth Court under s 275 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.