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

Police v P [2006] DCR 120

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v P
Reported: [2006] DCR 120
File number: CRN: 05004012776-83
Court: Youth Court
Location: Auckland
Date: 19 September 2005
Judge: Thorburn DCJ
Charge: Aggravated Robbery (x6)
CYPFA: s208; s283(o)
Key title: Adult Co-offenders; Convict and transfer to the District Court for sentence – s283(o) CYPFA; Orders – Convict and transfer to the District Court for sentence – s283(o)

LEXISNEXIS Case Summary:

Sentencing – Jurisdiction – Youth offender – Offences of aggravating nature – Whether to transfer to District Court – Parity with co-offenders – Principles of youth justice – Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 4, 4(f), 5, 5(a), 6, 208, 208(c), 208(d), 208(f), 283(o), 290, 290(2).

P was charged with six aggravated robberies, which he had not denied. He also committed several other offences while on bail for the robberies. The issue before the Court was whether to transfer P to the District Court for sentencing. No agreement was reached at the family group conference about what jurisdiction the sentencing for the aggravated robberies should occur in. However the police later indicated they did not oppose the Youth Court jurisdiction.

P’s offending was described as terrible. In each aggravated robbery a degree of violence or force was used. There was opportunistic offending, with people at such locations as ATM machines being targeted. A taxi driver and a bus driver were also targeted in planned offending. Another person was involved in the offending, and there was a suggestion that P might have taken a lesser role in the offending. However, in the sentencing of the co-offender in the District Court, the co-offender claimed that he had played the lesser role.

The police were seeking the matter to be transferred to the District Court for sentencing. They claimed parity with the co-offender was important and stressed the aggravating nature of the crimes. It was submitted that this was violent offending that had escalated and that given the serious nature of the offending the matter should be transferred to the District Court.

For P, it was submitted that there was a presumption against transfer in s 290(2) of the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act (“the Act”).

Held (declining to transfer the matter to the District Court)
1 Parity with the co-offender who was sentenced in the District Court was not pivotal. If the other person had been a young person who had been transferred to the District Court, then parity would have been more relevant (see para [11]).

2 The decision whether to transfer the case was guided by s 290. No transfer could occur unless the charges were purely indictable. The principles in ss 4 and 5 of the Act were also important (see para [12]).

3 In youth justice the principle of paramountcy of the welfare of the young person was set aside. When criminal offending was involved, there were other issues such as public interest, denunciation and deterrence that usurped the emphasis on the welfare of the young person (see paras [14]).

4 Section 208 of the Act dealt with the principles relating to young people who offended. One of those principles was that young people should be kept in the community as far as that was consistent with the safety of the public. P had no previous convictions and had the benefit of a strong and supportive family. Those factors weighed against transferring the case to the District Court. The prosecution had to overcome those principles, which recognised the rehabilitation and development of young offenders (see para [17], [20]).

5 The offending all occurred within one month, and his family had since brought P into line. What he did during that month was out of character, and the risk of him offending again was minimal. The principle of the least restrictive intervention was therefore important (see para [25]).

6 The sentencing would occur in the Youth Court, with P facing a sentence of supervision with residence, followed by supervision (see para [29]).

Cases mentioned in judgment

Police v Rangihika [2000] DCR 866.
RE v Police [1995] NZFLR 433.
S v Police [2000] NZFLR 380.