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

Police v KF (22 June 2005) YC, New Plymouth, CRI 2001-221-000012, Judge Becroft DCJ

Name: Police v KF
Unreported:
File number: CRI 2001-221-000012
Court: Youth Court
Location: New Plymouth
Date: 22 June 2005
Judge: Becroft DCJ
Charge: Sexual Violation; Abduction for Purpose of Sexual Connection
CYPFA: s275; s354
Key title: Admissibility of evidence; Jurisdiction of Youth Court – s275 offer/election

Summary: KF (15) charged with sexual violation and abduction for purpose of sexual connection; complainant an 82-year-old rest home resident suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease with absolutely no memory of the incident. Whether to offer Youth Court jurisdiction to KF; relevant considerations: (1) likely length of sentence of imprisonment if imprisonment imposed – here five year sentence “cap” if KF convicted and transferred to DC under s283(o) CYPFA sufficient; (2) nature and circumstances of offending – serious offending, significant public interest and these factors weigh against YC jurisidiction; (3) age – 15; (4) sufficient time remains for top end YC sentences; (5) personal and offending history – indecent assaults against girls under 12; (6) social and personal circumstances; (7) victim’s interests – victim suffers from dementia and will not be giving evidence, her interests can be equally well protected in the jury trial or YC forum; (8) rehabilitative provisions of CYPFA – if these charges are proved prime consideration must be that of punishment and imprisonment in the DC; (9) matter could be heard and finally determined very quickly in YC but if YC not offered, Crown to seek matter to HC leading to significant delays; (10) public interest.

Whether statements made by the elderly woman to others after the incident, otherwise hearsay, should be admitted against KF. If jury trial held, s344A Crimes Act 1961 application possible but no provision for such an application in YC. If in YC, summary hearing with “voir dire” hearing would be needed. If evidence ruled inadmissible in YC, would admissibility be considered a point of law under s354 CYFPA that could found an appeal? Here it was held the evidence admissibility issue, the same issue as in R v Manase (2000) 18 CRNZ 378, would be a point of law not of fact and would clearly be appealable under the CYPFA.

Decision: YC jurisdiction offered as less delay, no significant disadvantages to the Crown and public interest may be adequately protected even if charges heard in first instance by YC. YC jurisdiction accepted; charge denied. Upon any finding of guilt, conviction and transfer to DC likely.