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

Police v SF (15 June 2005) YC, Wellington, CRI-2004-285-000133

Name: Police v SF
Unreported
File number: CRI-2004-285-000133
Date: 15 June 2005
Court: Youth Court
Location: Wellington
Judge: Becroft DCJ
Charge: Injuring with intent to injure; Robbery
CYPF no: s282; s283(a)
Key Title: Orders - Discharge - s282; Orders - Discharge - s283(a); Discharge - s282; Discharge - s283(a)

Summary: SF (16) faced a charge of injuring with intent to injure and robbery. Whether the Judge should impose a discharge under s282 of the CYPF Act, which is an absolute discharge as if charges had never been laid, or a discharge under s283(a), which involves no further penalty but the order would remain on SF’s record.

SF carried out a vicious and apparently unprovoked attack on another young man; victim suffered on-going physical and mental problems from head injury; panic attacks; whole family adversely affected. FGC held; comprehensive plan agreed on; plan completed under sufferance; unwilling compliance necessitated the reconvening of the FGC at one stage; bail breaches. Police argued that no remorse shown or, at best, SF very slow to demonstrate remorse. Youth Advocate argued that from a cultural perspective SF must be embarrassed or ashamed to show remorse but insisted that he did feel remorseful. Psychological report reveals that SF has “an intermittent explosive disorder”; some “post-traumatic stress syndrome” symptoms and difficulty controlling his anger. This was considered in the judgment and the Judge noted that it was something SF had been battling with “over and above what most young boys face” (para [18]). No previous or subsequent offending; s208 and s284 considered. The need for the least restrictive sanction (as per s208(f)(ii) CYPF Act) is recognised in the judgment ([para 24]) and the support offered by the CYPF Act for second chances is noted. Held: Given seriousness of offending there is a need for a record against SF’s name; it would be unfair to those who complete their plans faithfully and get a s282 to give SF a s282. The Judge stated that SF is getting a “second chance” in that he is getting no more than a record against his name for serious offending.

Decision: Order – s283(a) –This decision was upheld on appeal: see Feao (Sam) Junior Fapuiaki v Police (HC, Wellington, CRI 2005 485 97, Young J).