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

R v Sean James Torstonson and Jayde Ranginui Ham (DC, Hamilton, CRI-2006-219-233, 24 November 2006, McAloon J)

Name: R v Sean James Torstonson and Jayde Ranginui Ham
Unreported
File number: CRI 2006-219-233
Court: District Court
Location: Hamilton
Date: 24 November 2006
Judge: McAloon J
Charge: Arson
CYPFA:
Key title: Sentencing in the adult Courts - Application of Youth Court principles; Sentencing in the adult Courts - Arson
Case Summary:

Sentencing of the defendants following convictions and guilty pleas to two charges of arson. Both defendants were originally charged in the Youth Court. Both defendants were aged 15 at the time of the offences.
On 4 July 2006 at 11:15pm the alarm at Melville High Scholl was activated. The caretaker and Police arrived at the school to find that the technology centre, D block was on fire. A small area of carpet had been burnt and it was clear an accelerant had been used. The next morning at 2:45am the alarms were activated again in the computer wing of the school. The fire brigade attended, but the computer wing was completely destroyed, the damage being estimated at $750,000.00. The defendant Jayde Ham, JH went to the Police the next day and admitted being in the school grounds lighting fires the previous evening with school friends, including the defendant Sean Torstonson, ST. When interviewed by the Police, ST admitted being at the school, but denied lighting any fires. At the next interview both ST and JH admitted being involved in lighting both fires.

Issues

Whether Youth Court Principles apply on a transfer to the DC for sentencing?

In sentencing the Judge took into account all matters relevant to the sentencing exercise and those matters which are particularly relevant to young people.

Aggravating features were the seriousness of the offending and the amount of damage caused and premeditation. The fact that the defendants had ‘two goes’ at starting a fire was considered a very serious aggravating factor.

A mitigating feature was the defendants’ ages. Discussion that it is now accepted that young people of the defendants’ ages are immature and that their cognitive development does not necessarily equip them to have a complete understanding of the consequences of their actions. Another mitigating feature was the guilty pleas. ST pleaded guilty on the first day in he appeared in Court and JH pleaded guilty only after the depositions hearing. The defendants’ remorse and absence of prior offending were mitigating features.
The Judge considered s16 of the Sentencing Act 2002, and considered that the principles of sentencing could be followed and the purposes achieved by the imposition of community based sentences.

Decision:

1. JH was sentenced to two years supervision, subject to the standard conditions and that JH attend at and complete vocational as educational training as directed.
In addition JH was sentenced to 350 hours community work.
2. ST, taking into account his very early guilty plea and co operation with Police, was sentenced to 300 hours community work and 18 months supervision with the same conditions imposed as for JH.
3. The Judge declined to order that the interim name suppression continued.