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

Police v AT (2004) 20 CRNZ 1036 (YC)

Case summary provided by Brookers

Name:Police v AT
Reported: (2004) 20 CRNZ 1036
File number: CRN4285004915
Court: Youth Court
Location: Wellington
Date: 3 March 2004
Judge: Walsh DCJ
Charge: Assault with Intent to Injure
CYPFA: s208; s322
Key title: Delay

Brookers Summary:

Youth justice - Young person alleged to have committed assault with intent to injure - Intention to charge conference held 10 months later - Charge denied - Whether delay between alleged commission of offence and intention to charge conference "unnecessary or unduly protracted" - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 208, 322.

A T, a young person aged 16½ years, was alleged to have committed assault with intent to injure on 23 March 2003. She was implicated following information received on 8 April from an anonymous informant. When police attempts to contact A T were unsuccessful, they spoke with her lawyer, Ms Long, who advised that A T would not talk to police unless the evidence against her was disclosed. The police advised that they did not necessarily want to arrest A T, but wished to obtain a statement from her about her involvement in the alleged offence. Ms Long then advised she would try to get A T to talk with police.

On 17 June Ms Long met with A T and her family, after which she faxed a letter to Police and Youth Aid referring to the Youth Justice principles set out in s 208 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 ("the Act"), and advising that she did not consider A T’s behaviour was a threat to the public. She therefore requested a referral be made to Police Youth Aid for an intention to charge conference, but asked police to advise if they wished to proceed with an arrest procedure. Ms Long advised that, in the event A T was arrested, she reserved the right to challenge the decision to arrest rather than use the intention to charge process. A week later the police telephoned Ms Long advising that they still wished to speak with A T, suggesting that A T was trying to avoid arrest. Ms Long wrote a further letter to police on 27 June stating that the police did not need to interview A T in order to decide how to proceed, and again requested a referral to Youth Aid. The police then contacted A T’s parents directly, requesting that they bring A T to speak with police as "the lawyer was mucking police around".

Between July and September the police took very little further action, due to staff absences and the lack of a Youth Justice Coordinator. It was not until 19 November that police faxed an intention to charge referral to the Children and Young Persons Service. After querying the timeframes involved, the Youth Justice Coordinator accepted the referral on 26 November, but was unable to contact A T despite four attempts.

At a Family Group Conference, notified on 17 December 2003 and scheduled for 13 January 2004, A T denied the charge. An information was then filed on 21 January. A T appeared in the Youth Court on 28 January 2004, at which time [(2004) 20 CRNZ 1036, 1037] Ms Long advised that she would be making an application to have the information dismissed under s 322 of the Act.

Held, (1) the police were aware 2-3 months after the alleged offence that a young person was involved, and could have proceeded with an intention to charge process rather than insisting on speaking with her. In all the circumstances the young person could have been in the Youth Court, or engaged in the intention to charge process within 4 months of the date of the alleged offending, at the latest. There was no need to delay the inquiry further by trying to interview and possibly arrest her. (paras 15, 21, 23)

(2) Delays cannot be justified by reference to considerations such as staff shortages and pressure of work. In the present case, while specific delays were explicable, the totality of the delays, in particular the 6 months that elapsed from receipt of the June letters until the filing of an information, crossed the threshold of becoming unnecessarily protracted. (para 26)

(3) Prejudice is a relevant factor to be considered when determining whether proceedings have become unduly protracted. (para 27)

Police v D H [1995] NZFLR 473 referred to

(4) The public interest in holding young people accountable for their actions must be balanced against the fact that the Act requires proceedings against a young person to be carried out expeditiously. and, in the present case, the fact that the charge was denied. (para 29)

Police v B G T D 21/10/99, Judge Ongley, YC Rotorua CRN9277003372073 referred to

Cases referred to

B G T D v Youth Court at Rotorua 15/3/00, Robertson J, HC Rotorua M119/99
Martin v Tauranga District Court [1995] 2 NZLR 419; (1995) 12 CRNZ 509; (1995) 1 HRNZ 186 (CA)
Police v A C T (1992) 8 CRNZ 304
Police v B G T D 21/10/99, Judge Ongley, YC Rotorua CRN9277003372073
Police v Crowe, Judge Carruthers, YC Wellington CRN0285015569
Police v D H [1995] NZFLR 473
R v M 20/6/95, Judge McAloon, YC Blenheim CRN4218004914, 5006003822/3/4
R v Morin [1992] 1 SCR 771; (1992) 71 CCC 3(d) 1; (1992) 12 CR (4th) 1; (1992) 134 NR 321

Application

This was an application to have an information laid against a young person dismissed on the grounds of undue or unnecessary delay, contrary to s 322 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.