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

Police v HGBH [2006] DCR 958

Name: Police v HGBH
Unreported:
File number: CRI 2005-291-106
Court: Youth Court
Location: Porirua
Date: 22 May 2006
Judge: Becroft DCJ
Charge: Operating a motor vehicle on a road carelessly causing death
CYPFA: s282; s283(a)
Key title: Discharge – s282; Discharge – s283(a); Orders - Discharge – s282; Orders – Discharge s283(a)

Case Summary: H (16) had admitted operating a motor vehicle on a road carelessly and thereby causing the death of her driving instructor. Whether to impose a section 282 or a section 283(a) order. The Police and the victim’s family were firmly in favour of a section 283(a) discharge while H’s lawyer and the FGC co-ordinator argued for a section 282 discharge.

Judge Becroft noted that in considering whether to exercise his discretion as to which type of discharge should be entered, the law required a consideration of section 284, the youth justice principles in section 208 and the general principles set out in section 4 and section 5. Further, he noted that section 282 was not confined to less serious offending and that:

“in recognition of the particular facts of an individual case and an offender’s positive response, it is sometimes appropriate to absolutely discharge an offender where there has been serious offending (para [8]).”

However, in this case the section 284 factors were mostly in H’s favour and consequently the level of carelessness became the central issue. The Judge weighed up:

• the degree of driving fault;
• the fact that a human life had been lost; and
• the victim’s family’s view that the value of that life might be discounted and the seriousness of the situation might be undervalued if a section 283(a) order were not made.

against:

• The very positive response of the young person, a first offender
• The young person was very remorseful
• And a learner driver under the guidance of a more mature adult.

H’s carelessness was her failure to see the signs that were, in fact, incorrectly placed to properly signal upcoming road works; FGC “magnificent”; H carried out all FGC recommendations and did more community work than required. The youth justice principles in section 208(c)(e) and (f) particularly supported a section 282 discharge but nevertheless regard must be had to section 208(g) - measures taken need to have due regard to the interest of any victim; very difficult decision.

Decision: Because of HGBH’s age, her positive response, the moderate degree of carelessness and the fact that she was a learner driver, Judge Becroft granted her a section 282 discharge “with some reservation”.