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

Police v S (12 February 2004) YC, Lower Hutt, Walker DCJ

Name: Police v S
Unreported
File Number:
Date: 12 February 2004
Court: Youth Court
Location: Lower Hutt
Judge: Walker DCJ
Charge:
CYPFA: s246; s249
Key Title: Family Group Conference - Timeframes/limits; Family Group Conference - Convene/Held

Summary: Application to dismiss Information because of failure to convene a FGC within the statutory time limit (14 days); reasons were given for delay, including that the Youth Justice Co-ordinator did not know the nature of the allegations and whether any victims were to be invited but had started the process of convening a conference; definition of "convene" discussed; H v Police [1999] NZFLR 966 considered; here no FGC convened within the statutory time limit. Judge then had to decide whether failure to convene within the statutory time limit meant the Information must be dismissed. The Information had been validly laid – it was laid following the arrest of the young person so there was no requirement for an intention to charge FGC prior to the laying of the Information. This contrasts with the situation where there is no arrest where the provisions of s245 CYPFA prohibit the laying of an Information unless there has been consultation between the Police and the YJC and the matter has been considered by an FGC convened under Part IV CYPFA (this was the situation in H v Police the effect of which is that the information is invalid as having been laid contrary to statute). Here the Information has been validly laid but no FGC has been convened under CYPFA. The effect is that without an FGC having considered the matter the Court cannot receive recommendations upon which it can rely in the final disposition of the case. Section 281B CYPFA not there to enable remedial steps to be taken where the strict time limits imposed by CYPFA have not been complied with; there is no power for the Judge to reconvene a FGC; the Information is not therefore justiciable and it would be an abuse of process for it to continue; no need for disciplinary approach, instead leave granted to withdraw the Information; Judge states that this should not be used as a "backstop" for Police in cases of delay.

Decision: Leave to withdraw Information granted.