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

Police v P [2002] NZFLR 477 (DC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v P
Reported: [2002] NZFLR 477
File number: CRN 2243003352
Date: 28 February 2002
Court: District Court
Location: New Plymouth
Judge: Harding DCJ
Charge: Aggravated Burglary
CYPFA:
Key Title: Sentencing in the adult Courts - Aggravated Burglary

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Sentencing - Young offender - Aggravated burglary - Youth Court - Transfer from Youth Court to District Court - Starting point for sentencing - Custodial sentence - Age as consideration - Suspended sentence - Purely indictable offences - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, s 283 - Criminal Justice Act 1989, s 8.

The defendant was a young offender with a history of alcohol and drug abuse. The defendant and an older associate stole a car and used it to ram raid a farm supply business. After stealing chemicals from the business, they disguised themselves and held up a service station with a tomahawk. In the Youth Court, the defendant had been convicted of three charges of burglary, one charge of drunk driving, one charge of driving while disqualified, one charge of shoplifting, one charge of taking a car and aggravated robbery. As the defendant’s offending had become more regular and serious over the years, he had been transferred from the Youth Court to the District Court for sentencing.

The Court considered that the starting point for sentencing was five and a half years. The defendant’s associate had been convicted and sentenced to 4four and a half years. The defendant had already spent 49 days in custody under the provisions of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The issue before the Court was what would be an appropriate sentence for the defendant having regard to his age, his involvement, and to the other matters to which the Court was properly obliged to take into account.

Held (sentencing defendant to two and a half years’ imprisonment on the charge of aggravated burglary)

(1) Age alone is a highly relevant consideration and the younger the offender, the more significant age becomes. But age by itself does not automatically justify leniency. Age is only one of the factors to be taken into account.

(2) A suspended sentence is generally only possible in aggravated robbery if the elements that convert a robbery to an aggravated robbery are there to a small extent only, or if the defendant was involved in a very limited role.

(3) Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 prevents the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on young offenders other than for purely indictable offences.

Cases referred to in judgment

R v Accused (Court of Appeal, CA 265/88)
R v C (Court of Appeal, CA 491/99, 15 March 2000)
R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170
R v Tufala (High Court, Auckland S83/97, 10 October 1997, Hammond J)

Application

This was a decision on sentencing in relation to a young offender.