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

Police v B [2007] DCR 232

Name: Police v B
Reported: [2007] DCR 232
File number: CRN 062270005724-38
Court: YC
Location: Kaikohe
Date: 29 March 2006
Judge: H M Simpson
Charge: Unlawful sexual connection, rape, indecent assault of children
CYPFA: s322
Key title: Delay
Case Summary: Application to dismiss for undue delay.

B was charged with seven indictably laid charges: five counts of unlawful sexual connection, and two counts of rape. He also faced 15 summarily laid charges relating to indecent assault of children aged under 12 and between 12 and 16 years of age. It was alleged that the offending took place between July 2003 and February 2005. The last of the complainant interviews was held on 17 June 2005. All matters were then referred to the police in Auckland. The investigation file was assigned to Detective Vickers on 1 August. On 8 November 2005 the Youth Aid file was forwarded to Kaikohe for further attention. An intention to charge family group conference was held on 12 January and charges were laid in Court. B made his first appearance at the Youth Court in connection with these charges on 16 January 2006 and matters were adjourned until 13 February.

These fact disclose 2 unexplained gaps in the process. First, between the referral of the matter to the Auckland Police on 17 June 2005 and the assignment of the file to Detective Vickers on 1 August 2005 a period of six weeks and three days. Secondly, between the forwarding of the file to Kaikohe Youth Aid on 8 November 2005 to the holding of the intention to charge family group conference on 16 January 2006 a period of nine weeks and three days.

The Court applied the principles set out in Police v P [2004] DCR 673, a decision of Judge Harvey in the Youth Court at Manukau, as well as those set out by the High Court in BGTD v Youth Court Rotorua (High Court, Rotorua 15 March 200, M119/99).

The Court accepted that the issues in this case were complex and, despite police staff being required for another high-profile investigation, held, following Police v P, that workload pressures were not enough to justify the delay. Following BGTD, the judge described the delays as unnecessary and unduly protracted.

The Court than considered whether there has been any prejudice to B as a result of turning 17 before appearing in the Youth Court on these charges. The judge cited X v New Zealand Police High Court, Auckland CRN 2004–404–374, 7 February 2005, in which the full bench of the HC held that an adult Court must take youth justice principles into account when sentencing youth offenders convicted and transferred into the District Court under s 283(o) of the CYPF Act. The Court held that B will still have the benefit of the relevant youth justice principals, if his case is transferred after an initial Youth Court appearance, and any prejudice is neither real or presumptive.

Decision: Application dismissed