Ministry of Justice >> Courts >> Youth Court >> Youth Court Decisions >> Case Summary

Youth Court Decisions

Police v Harley Adlam, Liam Dean Adlam and Desmond Galvin Taikato , 1 April 2008, High Court, Rotorua, Court Number CRI-2006-063-4350, Woodhouse J

Name: Police v Harley Adlam, Liam Dean Adlam and Desmond Galvin Taikato
Unreported:
File number: CRI-2006-063-4350
Court: High Court
Location: Rotorua
Date: 1 April 2008
Judge: Woodhouse J
Charge: Wounding with intent to injure
CYPFA:
Key title: Sentencing – High Court, Youth Justice Principles
Case Summary:
Sentencing of 3 co-offenders (aged 20, 15 and 14 at the time of the offence) in the HC. All three pleaded guilty to two charges of wounding with intent to injure.
The offenders went to a residential street. One or more of the offenders kicked or damaged a car outside a house. Three people came out of the house and a fight ensued.
Harley Adlam, (H) was hit by one of the people in the house with a shovel and ended up fighting that person. The other two offenders, armed with knives, got involved in a fight with two others resulting in two people being severely injured. Liam Adler, (L) was responsible for stabbing at least one of those people. It was unclear the extent that Desmond Galvin –Taikato (DT) was involved, but once the fight was broken up he had a knife in his hand.

L (15 at the time of offending) pleaded guilty to the charges. Of the three, L was in terms of involvement, the main offender. The man that L stabbed was stabbed seven times in the back. The injuries were severe.

Decision:
1. H was 20 at the time of the offending and was sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment.

2. In relation to L. Weighing all the circumstances and the extent of L’s involvement and relating that to the fact that the maximum penalty for the worst type of offending for this sort is 7 years, the Judge considered that the Crown’s proposed starting point of 5 to 6 years was too high. If L had been 18 or 19 a starting point of 3 to 4 years would have been appropriate.

The following considerations would have to be taken into account:

(i) That L was 15 at the time of offence. The law generally deals with young people, to an extent, differently. If the public need for protection is not at risk and there are alternative means to deal with the offending instead of prison, then alternative must be considered.
(ii) There was a very positive pre-sentence report. There was serious effort by L to remove himself from the bad influences that he had been involved with.
(iii) The guilty pleas.
(iv) No previous convictions
If L was 18 or 19 those factors would have reduced the sentence from 3-4 years to around 2 years and consideration could have been given to home detention.
(v) Application of youth justice principles as set out in the CYPFA.

Therefore, because of L’s youth a sentence of home detention for 12 months was imposed. In addition a sentence of community work of 140 hours. Up to 20% of the community work period could be used for work and living skills training.

3. In relation to DT (14). Most of the factors applicable to L applied to DT. The two main differences were that DT was in the middle of the fight and was holding a knife at the end of it. The Judge gave DT the benefit of the doubt, as there was no direct evidence that DT stabbed any of the victims. Secondly, at the time DT was only 14 years old. DT was sentenced to 10 months home detention, 100 hours community work, 20% of which could be used for training.