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

Police v EGO, 29 March 2006, Youth Court, Wanganui, CRI 2005-283-29, Judge Callinicos

Name: Police v EGO
Unreported
File number: CRI 2005-283-29
Court: Youth Court
Location: Wanganui
Date: 29 March 2006
Judge: Judge Callinicos
Charge: Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm s188(1) Crimes Act 1961
CYPFA: s283(o)
Key title: Sentencing, Conviction and Transfer

Case Summary: Successful application by the informant, Police, to have E convicted in the YC and transferred to the DC for sentencing pursuant to s283(o) CYPFA. This decision followed E’s admission in the YC to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, an indictable offence.

E stabbed the victim with a knife, following an altercation with the victim. The victim was hospitalised for five days. E admitted the charge at the FGC and the Youth Court. Following a reserved decision retaining E’s trial within the YC, the matter proceeded to a hearing. The matter was referred to a FGC which could not reach agreement on sentencing.

The Judge considered the factors in s284 and s290 of the CYPFA. In this case one of the prerequisites of s290 exists, namely that the charge was purely indictable. The objects and principles sections 4, 5 and 208 of the CYPFA were considered. Relevant principles in this case were identified as s208(c),(d),(f) and (g).
R v Taueki (2005) 21 CRNZ 769 was referred to as the leading tariff case for grievous bodily harm. The CA stated in Taueki that as noted in R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170, the sentencing bands should be used flexibly and that ‘sentencing Judges will need to exercise judgment in assessing the gravity of each aggravating feature and that the features of the offending in each case must be carefully assessed in order to establish a starting point which properly reflects the culpability inherent in the offending.’

Youth factors were discussed with reference to X v Police (High Court Auckland, Health and Courtney JJ, CRI 2004-4-4-374, 11 February 2005), W and Others v The Registrar of Tokoroa Youth Court (1999) 18 FRNZ 433.
The particular circumstances of E’s situation were considered with reference to the s284 CYPFA factors. The attack was premeditated. E had a dysfunctional background, and her drug use had caused some level of mental functioning impairments. E had displayed some positive attributes when free of some of the substantial dysfunction of her family life. E’s family had diminished capacity to appreciate that E’s behaviours were a consequence of their abuse and neglect. E had not apologised formally to the victim, however no victim impact statement was available. E had no previous proven offences.

Decision:
HELD: Convicting and transferring E to the DC for sentencing.
1. E was now almost 17 years of age. She had a substantial range of serious longstanding issues.
2. It is important in sentencing to balance the goal of reduction in future offending with a degree of punitive response, rehabilitation and protection of the community.
3. In the absence of Youth Justice principles, the offence would have a high probability of leading to a significant term of imprisonment with the second band described in Taueki.
4. The options available other than a s283(o) were not appropriate. Rehabilitation is still an option, but the time available for rehabilitative measures in the YC was not sufficient.
5. Directions that a full adult pre-sentence report be obtained pursuant to s26 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Note that any reports and recommendations should take into account youth justice principles.
6. Directions to the informant to obtain a verified statement of the victim’s views to be available at sentencing.