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

Police v DJT (7 April 2005) YC, Manukau, CRN 04292067113, Judge Simpson DCJ

Name: Police v DJT
Unreported:
File number: CRN 04292067113
Court: Youth Court
Location: Manukau
Date: 7 April 2005
Judge: Simpson DCJ
Charge: Unlawfully Taking a Motor Vehicle
CYPFA: s5(f); s322
Key title: Delay

Summary: DJT (16 yrs, 5 months at time of alleged offending) charged with unlawfully taking a motor vehicle; delay of over 10 months between the alleged offending and the first call of the matter; DJT was 17 yrs, 2.5 months at time of laying of Information and 17 yrs, 7 months at date of decision. Counsel argue undue delay contrary to s322 CYPFA, s5(f) CYPFA; prejudice caused because, due to the delay, DJT denied opportunity to be dealt with as a youth, denied rehabilitative options of the Youth Court; also DJT denied recognition of vulnerability of young persons entitling them to special protection during any investigation of alleged offending (s208(h) CYPFA). Police argue delay due to insufficient Police resources but that nevertheless the case had been given some priority; length of delay similar to amount of time routinely taken by Christchurch Youth Drug Court to deal with matters. BGTD v Youth Court Rotorua (Unreported, 15 March 2000, Robertson J, High Court, Rotorua, M119/99) distinguished. Police v AT (Unreported, Wellington Youth Court, 3 March 2004, Judge A P Walsh); and Police v P & R [2004] DCR 673 applied. Held: Delay found; delay was unduly protracted. Public interest in having offenders held accountable and the rights of the victim to have matters dealt with in a sensitive and timely manner recognised; delays must be set against clear statement of principle in s5(f); Police resourcing issues do not justify the delay; case not analogous to therapeutic programmes in the Christchurch Youth Drug Court where young persons are before the Court because an Information has been laid. Delay was prejudicial to DJT as he is now 17 and this prejudice is sufficiently serious to justify the extreme step of halting the proceeding.

Decision: Information dismissed.