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

Police v TH and ID, 31August 2007, Youth Court, Tauranga, CRI-2007-270-000125, Judge Ingram

Name: Police v TH, ID
Unreported
File number: CRI-2007-270- 000125
Court: Youth Court
Location: Tauranga
Date: 31 August 2007
Judge: Ingram J
Charge: Attempted murder
CYPFA: s275, s283(o)
Key title: Conviction and transfer to the DC, Purely Indictable Procedure

Case Summary:
Issues
1. Whether to offer Youth Court jurisdiction under s275 of the CYPFA?
2. Whether or not s238(o) precludes the transfer to the DC of proceedings where the young person was under 15 at the time of the commission of the offence, but 15 years or more at the time of depositions in the YC?

ID faced charges of attempted murder, aggravated burglary and three charges of using a firearm against a Police Officer. TH faced a charge of attempted murder. The attempted murder charges were in respect of a Police officer, who was at the time carrying out his duty.
Following depositions the Judge was satisfied there was a case to answer.
The allegation against ID and TH was that they had used a firearm to dissuade the Police from continuing with a vehicular pursuit and from arresting them.
At the time of the offending both TH and ID were 14 or just turned 15 years of age (now 15).
The Judge was unable to accept the view of Thorburn J in Police v H [2004] DCR 97 that s283(o) allows an offender who is 14 at the time of the offence, but 15 or older at the time of Court hearing, to be transferred to the DC for sentence.

Decision:
Declining to offer YC jurisdiction
The reference to age 15 years in s283(o) of the CYPFA is referring to a youth who committed an offence at the age of 15 and that offenders under the age of 15 on the date of the commission of the offence cannot be transferred to the DC for sentencing from the YC - if YC jurisdiction was to be offered.
Given the seriousness of the attempted murder charge and that it would be difficult to find a more serious scenario than this case, a sentencing Judge might conclude that the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002 requiring the imposition of the maximum penalty must come into play.
It follows that the range of sentencing options available in the YC are inadequate to deal with these offences.
Given the jurisdictional bar to sending TH and ID to the DC for sentencing, it would be inappropriate to make an initial offer of YC jurisdiction.
The charges are of such seriousness that no forum other than the HC could be appropriate.

Note: This decision was judicially reviewed in the HC, see D v Youth Court at Tauranga & A-G 3 October 2007 HC Tauranga Justice Baragwanath.