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

R v P (18 September 2003) CA 59/03, Keith, Hammond and Paterson JJ

Name: R v P
Unreported
File number: CA59/03
Date: 18 September 2003
Court: Court of Appeal
Location: Wellington
Judge: Keith, Hammond and Paterson JJ
CYPFA: s283(o)
Charge: Sexual Violation by Unlawful Sexual Connection and Attempted Sexual Violation
Key Title: Sentencing in the adult Courts - Sexual Violation - Rape; Sentencing in the adult Courts - application of Youth Court principles; General Principles of Sentencing eg Parity/Jurisdiction

P (16 at time of offending) charged with sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and attempted sexual violation, purely indictable charges. During the preliminary YC hearing, P indicated a desire to plead guilty and was offered YC jurisdiction under s276 of the CYPFA, which he accepted. The YC subsequently transferred the matter to the DC for sentence under s283(o) CYPFA and the DC imposed a custodial sentence of 5½ years. P appealed against sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. Held: When a matter is transferred from the YC to the DC under s283(o), there is a cap on any custodial sentence of 5 years (s7 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957). Here, the DC was subject to that 5 year sentencing limit and consequently did not have the power to impose the sentence it did. Appeal from DC in its summary criminal jurisdiction is to the HC; appeal to Court of Appeal fails for want of jurisdiction.

There is no explicit power in the CYPFA to lift the 5 year cap for s283(o) sentencing (cf. the power to do so in respect of adult offenders under s28F(3) and (4) of the District Courts Act 1947). At the time when the CYPFA was enacted, the District Court could not sentence on purely indictable charges and there was a 3 year cap on custodial sentences where an adult pleaded guilty at a preliminary hearing. When these matters were changed in respect of adult offenders, it would be expected that, if such changes were also to apply to young persons, express provision to that effect would have been made. No consequent change was made to the CYPFA, so it must be assumed that it was not intended that an uncapped custodial sentence should be possible in respect of Youth Court-transferred matters.

Decision: Appeal declined for want of jurisdiction.