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

New Zealand Police v HW, 15 April 2008, Youth Court, Rotorua, CRI-2008-263-36, Judge Cocurullo

Name: Police v HW
Unreported:
File number: CRI-2008-263-36
Court: Youth Court
Location: Porirua
Date: 15 April 2008
Judge: Judge Cocurullo
Charge: Sexual violation, unlawful sexual connection
CYPFA: s275
Key title: Jurisdiction – s275 offer/election –purely indictable procedure

Case Summary:
HW (15 at the time of the offence) faced two indictably laid informations in the YC, one of sexual violation by rape and one of unlawful sexual connection. The complainant was a 14 year old female.
HW denied the offending. Depositions proceeded in the YC and it was found that there was sufficient evidence in respect of both informations to put HW up for trial.

Issue: Whether HW should be given the opportunity, pursuant to s275, of foregoing the right to trial by jury and electing to have the informations heard and determined in the YC?
Factors considered:

Relevant decisions
P v H (A young person) [2003] DCR 97. In P v Richard, YC Upper Hutt, CRN 9278003995/4028, 12 June 1990, Judge Lee, the relevant factors were set out: Nature of offending, seriousness of offending and role of young person in it, sentencing options available in YC, accountability and responsibility principles of s4 of the CYPFA, rehabilitative measures in the CYPFA, which forum would be able to hear the case sooner, the age of the offender in relation to the period in which youth justice measures would be available and public interest.

1. Nature and seriousness of offending
This factor weighed against offering YC jurisdiction.

2. Sentencing options
There was no impediment to HW being convicted and transferred to the DC under s283(o), considering the 290 factors. Given that HW was 15 years there could be consideration of s283(o). This factor weighed in favour of retaining YC jurisdiction.

3. Accountability
The YC has innovative sentencing options and is a specialist jurisdiction that recognises youth as an important factor when considering young people and alleged criminal offending. This factor, when balanced, supported retention of YC jurisdiction.

4. The interests of the young person under the rehabilitative provisions of the CYPFA
YC jurisdiction ends at 17.5 years. HW was 15 years and 5 months, so 25 months remained in which the rehabilitative provisions of the CYPFA could be considered. This factor weighed in favour of retaining YC jurisdiction.

5. Hearing date
A jury trial would be 8 months away, whereas a YC hearing could be within a three month period.
The Police did not oppose YC jurisdiction being offered. This was not a situation where the Police would have sought a period of imprisonment exceeding 5 years if the charges were proven against HW (the limit is 5 years imprisonment following a conviction and transfer under s283(o)). That stance taken by the Police weighed in favour of retaining YC jurisdiction.

Decision:
YC jurisdiction was offered. This was a case where it was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the alleged offending, HW’s age and the time left for youth justice measures to be implemented.