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

Youth Aid v KBTMT, 16 May 2007, Youth Court, North Shore, CRI-2007-244-0009, Principal Youth Court Judge, Judge Becroft

Name: Youth Aid v KBTMT
Unreported:
File number: CRI-2007-244-0009
Court: Youth Court
Location: North Shore
Date: 16 May 2007
Judge: PYCJ, Judge Becroft
Charge: Burglary, taking of a motor vehicle, cheque book fraud
CYPFA: s288, s283(f)
Key title: Reparation

Note: This case was decided before the Court of Appeal decision, Police v Z, X, 26 February 2008, CA, O’ Regan, Robertson and Ellen France JJ, CA400/07 CA504/07 [2008] NZCA 27

Case Summary:
Application for a reparation order by the Police against the K’s parents, Mr and Mrs T. K was under 16 years of age at the time of the offending. K pleaded guilty to murder and faced a life imprisonment sentence. The offence was committed two days after a family group conference related to several property-related charges. From the FGC it was agreed that K would take responsibility for the reparation that arose from his offending.

Reparation:

1. $1286 owing to Ms S and Mr J as a result of burglary and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
2. $1270 to Mr and Mrs C in respect of three burglaries and cheque book fraud.

It was accepted that due to the murder charge, K could not realistically pay the amounts owing, therefore the Police sought a reparation order against K’s parents.

Mrs T exercised her right under s288 of the CYPFA to be heard:

(a) Mr and Mrs T would rather not pay the reparation: they did not say they would not pay.
(b) They wanted the Police to put to the four victims of K’s earlier offending exactly K’s plight, to see whether reparation was still sought, and if so whether that reparation was sought in full against the Ts, or whether some Court arrangement could be reached.
(c) Mrs T said that her husband, a self employed plasterer, had serious mental health issues arising out of this incident. Consequently, it was very difficult for him to work. Mrs T worked as a night shift worker in a plastic factory. They had a mortgage.

Judge Becroft stated that he would require details about the Ts financial position and confirmation as to the victims’ positions. He indicated that if the victims wanted a reparation order, the principle should be that they get their money. A reparation order should be made unless ‘absolutely impracticable.’ The victims’ interests should be properly looked after. While a reparation order might cause the Ts a little hardship, it could be paid off weekly or monthly.

Decision:
Hearing adjourned to 27 June 2007, as there was not enough information from either K’s parents, the youth advocate or from the Police.