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

Hudson v YC at Palmerston North & the Attorney-General (16 October 2006, HC, Palmerston North, CIV 2005 454 274, Young J)

Name: Hudson v YC at Palmerston North & the Attorney-General
Unreported:
File number: CIV 2005 454 274
Court: High Court
Location: Palmerston North
Date: 16 October 2006
Judge: Young J
Charge: Wounding with Intent to Cause GBH
CYPFA: s277
Key title: Jointly Charged with Adult; Adult Co-offenders

Case Summary Provided by LINX: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - judicial review sought - applicant convicted by jury in DC on indictable charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - sentenced to 6 years imprisonment - no appeal of conviction or sentence - applicant charged jointly with a young person Ms S - following preliminary hearing applicant committed for trial to HC - case "middle-banded" and trial took place in DC - Ms S offered opportunity to be tried in YC - offer accepted and she was ultimately acquitted at a hearing before a YCJ - applicant sought judicial review of decision to commit him for trial - lack of jurisdiction - failure to offer chance of being tried in YC - declarations sought that committal to HC for trial unlawful and invalid - applicant accepted no orders could be made declaring trial a nullity - applicant's main submission that s277 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 a "mini code" where a young person and an adult are charged jointly - dominant provision which deals exhaustively with how a young person and adult are to be dealt with when jointly charged - no jurisdiction to hold preliminary hearing and therefore committal invalid - HELD: declarations refused - HC rejected central submission that applicant should have been offered right of trial in YC - if applicant correct (1) s277 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 creates a new type of criminal charge where offence would ordinarily be categorised as indictable triable summarily or purely indictable - applicant to be tried summarily or by a jury depending on decision of a YCJ rather than on basis of how information laid - offences defined by whether a young person and adult jointly charged rather than on basis of seriousness of criminal offending - (2) right to elect trial by jury under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 compromised where young person and adult jointly tried - dependent on exercise of discretion by YCJ - (3) would remove advantages ordinarily available to a young person under s275, s276 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989

CHILDREN & YOUNG PERSONS STATUTES Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 s4, s5, s6, s208, s272, s272(4), s273, s274, s275, s276, s277, s277(1), s277(2), s277(3), s277(5), s440 - Crimes Act 1961 s188(1), s385 - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s24(e) - Summary Proceedings Act 1957 s209 CASES CITED Daemar v Gilliand [1981] 1 NZLR 61 ; Police v Manuel (1998) 16 CRNZ 62 ; Wilkins v Auckland District Court & Ors (1998) 11 PRNZ 232 ; Wilkins v Auckland District Court & Ors (1997) 10 PRNZ 395 ; R v O (No 2) [1999] 1 NZLR 326, (1998) 15 CRNZ 622 ; R v Blows (CA 103-95, 31 August 1995)
PAGES 20 p
LOCATION WDLS (Members only)