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

Police v JC [2006] DCR 465

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v JC
Reported: [2006] DCR 465
File number: CRI 2005-285-000098
Court: Youth Court
Location: Wellington
Date: 7 November 2005
Judge: Moss J
Charge: Obstructing constable in execution of duty; Assaulting constable
CYPFA: s208; s214
Key title: Arrest without Warrant

LexisNexis Case Summary:

Children and young persons – Youth Court – Obstructing constable in execution of duty – Assaulting constable – Out of control party – Church and carpark next to property where party being held – Church members concerned at behaviour and contacting police – Police attempting to close down party – Defendant asked not to re-enter and to leave on several occasions and warned of arrest – Defendant pushing past one officer and kicking another when being taken to van – Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 208, 214.

The defendant was present at a party on 6 August 2005. He and a number of his friends were invited but there were also 50 or so uninvited people. At around 9.30 pm the police went to the property where the party was being held for the first of two occasions that evening. There was a church and carpark next to the property and the police had been called by a member of the church community. That person was concerned that partygoers were spilling into the church carpark, behaving offensively, smashing bottles and interfering with vehicles. Two officers reached agreement with one of the occupiers that the party should be quietened down and they were ultimately satisfied that things were in control and left. A short time later the officers were returning from another incident and drove past the property on the way back to the police station. They were waved down by church members. One of the officers decided that the party was out of control. He found one of the occupiers and reached agreement with him that that was the case. He gave that occupier some time to try and close down the party. The occupier was not successful and then, after some difficulty, the two officers moved through the house to try and close down the party. Two other units were called and eventually there were ten officers trying to close down the party. The defendant emerged from a room upstairs and was confrontational towards the officers. He then stumbled, hit a window and broke it. The defendant and a friend were told to go downstairs, where arrests were already being made. An officer overheard another officer telling the defendant that he should leave or he would be arrested for obstruction. The defendant’s behaviour was described as aggressive and belligerent and he appeared to be intoxicated. That officer next saw the defendant still on the property arguing and being aggressive. He heard several warnings being given to the defendant not to re-enter the property and to leave the property. He also heard him being told that he would be arrested for obstruction if he did not leave. The defendant subsequently tried to push past that officer, at which point he was arrested for obstruction. A struggle ensued and the defendant was put in handcuffs. The defendant was being taken from the property to the church carpark, where the prisoner van was waiting, by the officer when he was pushed against a wall because he was struggling. At that point, he intentionally kicked another officer who had come to assist.

Held (informations proved)
1 The Court preferred the evidence of the police for several reasons. First, given the defendant’s behaviour as found by the Court, it was entirely likely that his attempt to avoid detention would have gone as far as assault. Secondly, the degree of pain which the officer who was kicked described, and the Court accepted as an accurate description and that was not challenged, was not the pain from an accidental application of force by a slight young man being detained by two burly seasoned police officers. Rather, that must have occurred as a result of an intentional application of force. Whether it was by knee or heel frankly did not overly matter. The Court was satisfied that, by whichever part of his body, the defendant had intentionally applied force to the body of the officer (see para [30]).

2 The defence to the obstruction charge was that the defendant did not know that the police officer was acting in the execution of his duty. It was clear to the Court on the facts that it had found that the defendant knew the police were acting in the execution of their duty which was to clear out this party, and that defence could not succeed (see para [31]).

3 The test that the officer must take steps to ascertain whether s 214 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 applies or not reads an additional step into s 214. The issue for the officer is not whether this offender is covered by the Act. It is a factual inquiry for the Court to consider whether the officer was satisfied and on reasonable grounds, not as to age but as to the factors set out in s 214(1)(a) and (b). There was no evidence that the officers considered age in this case but it was not necessary if the provisions of s 214(1) were fulfilled (see para [34]).
R v Grant (Youth Court, Henderson 30 July 1990, Harvey J) Not followed.

4 The Court was satisfied that the defendant was warned at least three times and probably six or seven times that if he continued to behave in the way he was he would be arrested for obstruction, and that the defendant did not desist. That was ample proof that it was necessary to arrest him to prevent further offending. In the Court’s view it followed inevitably from the description of the fracas, the number of officers, the difficulties of shutting down the party and the general behaviour of the defendant at the time that it would have been unwise to deal with the matter by way of summons because that would not have had the necessary immediate effect, which was to close down the defendant’s behaviour. It seemed to the Court that, notwithstanding his youth and the special protection offered by the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, the officer was satisfied and on reasonable grounds that the requirements of s 214 were met (see para [35]).

Decision: Informations proved.

Other cases mentioned in judgment
Police v Mackley (1994) 11 CRNZ 497.