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

Police v TJV (7 April 2005) YC, Manukau, CRN 05292007792; CRN 05292007793, Judge Simpson DCJ

Name: Police v TJV
Unreported:
File number: CRN 05292007792; CRN 05292007793
Court: Youth Court
Location: Manukau
Date: 7 April 2005
Judge: Simpson DCJ
Charge: Robbery; Aggravated Assault
CYPFA: s5(f); s322
Key title: Delay

Summary: T (14 yrs, 5 months at date of alleged offending on 21/5/04) charged with robbery and aggravated assault; Informations sworn on 2/2/05; T appeared in Court for first time in connection with these matters on 8/2/05. Counsel argue undue delay contrary to s322 CYPFA, s5(f) CYPFA; prejudicial to T’s schoolwork. 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. Cannot apply rule differently on basis of seriousness of the offence: Police v P & R. Held: Seriousness of offending put aside; therapeutic programmes in Youth Drug Court not analogous to this situation and in that Court the young persons are before the Court because an Information has been laid, here no Information laid for 9 months despite the fact that the identity of the offender was known. Delay found, delay was unduly protracted - Police resourcing issues not a justification for the delay and the public interest in holding a young person accountable for wrongdoing should not take precedence over the clear statement of principle in s5(f) CYPFA. The delay was prejudicial to T who is moving into an important stage of his education; prejudice sufficiently serious to warrant the extreme step of halting the proceedings.

Decision: Information dismissed.