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

H v Police (30 November 2005) YC, North Shore, CRI 2005/244/66 Judge M E Perkins

Name: H v Police
Unreported:
File number: CRI 2005/244/66
Court: Youth Court
Location: North Shore
Date: 30 November 2005
Judge: Perkins DCJ
Charge: Sexual Violation; Indecent Assault
CYPFA: s322, s5(f)
Key title: Delay

Summary: H charged with sexual violation (purely indictable offence) and indecent assault on 5-year-old half-sister. Alleged offending occurred 17-25/6/2004; several delays due to young person “not denying” summary offence and then denying the charge after the FGC; other systemic delays. Preliminary issue in respect of delay finally argued on 26/10/2005. Whether delay in the investigation following the disclosure to the Police of the offending on 18/10/2004 (although earlier referral form dated 28/9/2004 found) and the commencement of the prosecution on 27/4/2005 was unnecessarily or unduly protracted. Section 322 CYPFA; Police v Crowe (Unreported, YC, Wellington, CRN 0285015569); Police v DH [1995] NZFLR 473 as to timing and prejudice to defendant considered; BGTD v Youth Court Rotorua & NZ Police (Unreported, HC, Rotorua, M119/99, 15 March 2000): need to balance individual rights against the public interest; particularly pertinent where allegations of serious sexual offending are concerned; principles contained in s5(f) CYPFA are not to be elevated above all other issues.

Decision: Informations dismissed as:

(a) Delay between the commission of the alleged offences and the laying of the Information and the first hearing is inexplicable. This case is distinguishable from others in that the Police, at a very early stage, had clear evidence available in the form of a concession from the young person and the evidence of an eye witness, which they did not pursue.

(b) The delay occasioned quite substantial prejudice to the young person in the context of the principles and remedies available under the CYPFA. H no longer eligible for restorative justice procedures and, if charges proved, H would now be transferred to DC to face DC sentences.

(c) While partially the fault of the young person and not specifically pursued now by his youth advocate there have been further worrying delays in the systemic processes adopted by the YC following the FGC in having the matter proceed to a preliminary hearing.