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

WO v Police (6 July 2004) YC, Manukau, CRN 4292027400-7401 & 7404, Malosi DCJ

Name: WO v Police
Unreported
File number: CRN 4292027400-7401 & 7404
Date: 6 July 2004
Court: Youth Court
Location: Manukau
Judge: Malosi DCJ
CYPFA: s5(f); s322
Charge: Sexual violation
Key Title: Delay

Summary: WO (14 at time of offending) faced three charges of sexual violation on a male child; WO accepted two charges and denied a third; application to dismiss charges for delay. Offending occurred between 3/4/03 - 30/9/03 and hearing set down for 1/7/04. Judge adopted approach in BGTD v The Youth Court at Rotorua and New Zealand Police (High Court, Rotorua, M119/99, 15 March 2000) where s5(f) CYPFA approach important but not to be elevated above other issues; also adopted analysis of Harvey DCJ in Police v DH [1995] NZFLR 473 where words "whereever practicable" in s5(f) CYPFA recognised that external factors and bureaucratic delays may impact upon swift disposal of cases. Test in Police v JP and MR (Unreported, Youth Court, Manukau, 22 January 2004) applied: consider (1) whether there was a delay, (2) whether delay unnecessarily or unduly protracted, (3) if there has been prejudice caused and (4) "whether that prejudice to all of those matters together [is] significantly serious to warrant the extreme step of halting this proceeding". BRR v Police [1994] 11 FRNZ 25; Watson v Clarke [1990] 1 NZLR 715, 730 considered. Youth Court jurisdiction still available to WO for 2.5 years. WO’s individual rights to be balanced against public interest in cases of this nature; such matters to be considered on a case by case basis. Held: Judge found delay of 3 months and 20 days and that this was "unnecessarily and unduly protracted" but that it was not in the public interest to dismiss the charges given her finding that no prejudice to WO’s recall of events and ability to answer charges existed in allowing the charges to proceed.

Decision: Application dismissed.