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

Police v SJP (1 October 2003) YC, Wellington, Walsh DCJ

Name: Police v SJP
Unreported
File number:
Date: 1 October 2003
Court: Youth Court
Location: Wellington
Judge: Walsh DCJ
CYPFA: s275
Charge: Aggravated Robbery
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s275 offer/election

Summary: SJP charged with aggravated robbery; stole money from victim, lured him into an alleyway, threatened victim with knife to get wallet; incident carried out with adult co-offender. Whether s275 CYPFA offer of Youth Court jurisdiction should be made. Authorities considered: S v District Court at New Plymouth (1992) 9 FRNZ 57; C v District Court at Dunedin (1993) 10 FRNZ 416; Police v I (1998) 18 FRNZ 185; NZ Police v K-H (Youth Court, Auckland, CRN 2257008263/4, 5 February 2003). Here, relevant factors are (1) that sentencing options are wider in the Youth Court than the District Court (R v P (High Court, Auckland, S89/90, 14 September 1999, Gault J); (2) whether any sentence of imprisonment is likely to exceed 5 years; (3) the nature and circumstances of the alleged offending (Police v James (A Young Person) (1991) 8 FRNZ 628; Police v Tai (1991) 8 FRNZ 613; Police v P (30 September 1991, Youth Court, Auckland, CRN 1204003984, Brown YCJ; Police v TLA [2000] DCR 240); (4) shorter timeframe for Youth Court hearings more suitable for young people; (5) age and previous record (Police v James (A Young Person); Police v S & M (1993) 11 FRNZ 322); (6) victim’s interests (Police v Tai); (7) necessity for young offender to be held accountable and accept responsibility for behaviour (Police v Richard (Youth Court, Upper Hutt, 12 June 1990, CRN 9278003995/6, Lee DCJ); (8) desirability for joint hearing for victim and alleged offenders (C v District Court at Dunedin (1993) 10 FRNZ 496; Police v TLA); (9) public interest (R v Police (1990) 6 FRNZ 538; Police v James); (10) attitude of prosecutor (R v Police (1990) 6 FRNZ 538) and (11) whether young person denies the offence (NZ Police v King-Hazel, Judge Thorburn). Here, any term of imprisonment, likely to be less than 5 years; public interest important but this is weighed against need to ensure SJP has the benefit of rehabilitative aspects of sentencing in Youth Court; SJP a party to the offence and offence of mid to lower range of seriousness; fixture likely to be allocated more quickly in the Youth Court; SJP has stayed out of trouble recently; goal of accountability can be achieved in the Youth Court. Young people should be offered Youth Court jurisdiction unless some good reason demonstrated for not doing so (Police v D, Levin, CRN 525003780, 13 May 1995, Judge Inglis QC); here good reason to offer election.

Decision: Youth Court jurisdiction.