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

CK v Police (17 October 2006, HC, Wellington, CRI 2006-485-41, Miller J)

Name: CK v Police
Unreported
File number: CRI 2006-485-41
Court: High Court
Location: Wellington
Date: 17 October 2006
Judge: Miller J
Charge: Assault with intent to injure; Wounding with intent
CYPFA: s247(b); s245; s250; s253
Key title: Family Group Conferences - Convened/Held
Summary: Unsuccessful appeal against Youth Court decision on grounds that Youth Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges as FGC not properly convened under s253 CYPFA, the Judge wrongly admitted CK’s statement to the police, and there was insufficient evidence from which the Judge could find that the wounding and assault charges were proven.

On 27 July 2005, the YJC received a referral and a summary of facts in relation to the case. On 2 August 2005 the YJC spoke with the mother of one of the victims describing his role and explaining the FGC process. He advised that there was a possibility that the charges may be denied by CK and SL. The YJC advised that it was not necessary to attend the FGC where a denial of the charge was likely to be recorded. On 12 August 2005 the YJC spoke with the second victim. Again, he explained the FGC process and stressed that there was no need for the victim to attend to hear a denial of the summary of facts. The victim advised that he would not attend the FGC. YJC called CK’s mother to explain that a FGC conference would be held and its purpose; CK’s mother adamant that issue of whether CK would deny the charges was not discussed. YJC believed that CK and co-accused intended to deny charges.

At FGC process and summary of facts discussed; CK denied the charges and disagreed with the summary of facts. YJC convened FGC under s247(b); s245(1) CYPFA applied. YJC maintained he had applied s250 and that he had consulted CK and his family about the date, time and place of the FGC, who should attend, and the procedure to be adopted. YJC intended a two-stage process – if CK admitted responsibility the FGC would be adjourned and reconvened with the victims present if they wished to attend.

Police v BM [1993] 11 FRNZ 29; Police v N [2004] NZFLR 1009 distinguished. A YJC cannot conduct a two-stage FGC in which a conference is held with the young person and family group alone to determine whether offence is admitted before victim invited to second conference. FGC provisions in CYPFA envisage a single conference will be convened – they do not envisage that a conference of some eligible participants will be convened, then adjourned so that other eligible attendees can be invited to attend. Section s253(4) available; speculative to submit that different outcomes may have resulted had the victims attended; the victims chose not to attend and one victim’s mother had made it clear that the maximum penalty was sought. FGC important but it does not follow that every prosecution must fail where the procedures for convening a conference have miscarried. It cannot be said that in the circumstances failure to attend was likely to have materially altered the outcome of the conference.

Decision: FGC ground of appeal fails. Appeal also unsuccessful as to admissibility of CK’s statement to Police and sufficiency of evidence as to the charges.