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

GTH v New Zealand Police (16 May 2006, HC, Tauranga, CRI 2006-470-11), Simon France J

Name: GTH v Police
Unreported:
File number: CRI 2006-470-11
Court: High Court
Location: Tauranga
Date: 16 May 2006
Judge: Simon France J
Charge: Assault with a Weapon
CYPFA: s282; s283(a)
Key title: Discharge – s282; Discharge – s283(a); Orders – Discharge s282; Orders – Discharge s283(a)

Case Summary: GTH had been discharged under section 283(a) by the Youth Court after completing a FGC plan. That section 283(a) order was made on the basis that a drunk GTH had “got into a scrap, smashed a beer bottle and stabbed it at somebody, just grazing them and cutting their clothes. Fortunately not doing any more damage.” On appeal to the High Court the appellant argued that this was an incorrect summary of the facts in that:

(a) The appellant did not initiate a confrontation out of the blue;
(b) The assault was not the use of a bottle but rather threatening the victim with it; and
(c) The appellant did not thrust the broken bottle at the victim.

The Youth Court viewed the former facts as sufficiently serious to opt for the section 283(a) discharge to create a record if the appellant offended in future. France J agreed that if the facts had been as described by the Youth Court he would have upheld the Court’s exercise of its discretion in imposing a section 283(a) discharge [para 13]. The High Court noted there was little authority on the relevant factors to take into account when choosing between section 282 and section 283(a) but that “obviously the principles of the Act are applicable and important”. France J quoted Principal Youth Court Judge Becroft in Police v KF (CRI 2004-285-000133, YC, Wellington, para [22]) where a section 283(a) order was imposed after KF took a long time and much cajolling to complete his FGC plan and in light of the statutory factors in the CYPFA.

France J stated that, in contrast, the efforts of the young person in this case to make amends were “exemplary”. Further, he had good family support and, although the resort to the use of a weapon was a concern it was not seen as decisive by Judge Becroft in Police v KF nor by Judge Thorburn in Police v R (7 January 2002, YC, Auckland, CRN 1204003769). Thus, it was possible on the less serious amended facts to reflect the efforts of the appellant by substituting a discharge under section 282.

Decision: Section 282 Discharge.