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

R v IM , 5 February 2008, High Court, Auckland, Justice Heath, CRI 2007-292-359

Name: R v IM
Unreported
File number: CRI 2007-292-359
Court: High Court
Location: Auckland
Date: 5 February 2008
Judge: Justice Heath
Charge: Aggravated robbery, robbery
CYPFA:
Key title: Sentencing

Case Summary:
IM appeared in the Youth Court, following offending that occurred in May 2007, when IM was aged 14 years 7 months. Indicated that charges were not denied, but application for Youth Court jurisdiction denied by YC Judge, primarily on public interest grounds and well publicised increase in serious youth offending. IM was transferred to High Court due to age, and entered guilty pleas to both charges.

Heath J commented on the seriousness of the charges, and reminded IM of the maximum sentences of imprisonment available for the offences (14 years, and 10 years respectively).

Robbery involved a plan to snatch a handbag from a suitable victim, aided by older brother (18 years old) and his partner (24 years old), who both waited in the car. Victim was pushed to the ground and suffered minor injuries.

Second plan was made to rob a superette. IM and brother entered superette with bandanas over their faces and carrying an empty wine bottle, and a fence paling, respectively. Brother’s partner waited outside as getaway driver. Shop assistant struck in the head by brother after struggle. Some cigarettes were taken.

Court comments that IM was “impressionable and easily led”, and had been given methamphetamine before embarking on the offending. Though youth justice principles applying in the Youth Court are more rehabilitative in nature, age can be given considerable weight as a mitigating factor in sentencing in the adult courts. Refers to X v Police (2005) 22 CRNZ 60 and R v Patea-Glendinning (2006) 22 CRNZ 959, but takes the view that the Court is:

“…entitled to apply youth justice principles in sentencing in a case such as this. Application of those principles recognises the immaturity which someone of your young age will have and the impressionability and likelihood that they will succumb to the influences of older people.”

Both counsel agreed that imprisonment would not be justified for “a 14 year old who has no prior history of offending and who has acted under dark influences of an elder brother”. Court recognised twin demands for sentencing that denounces the wrong and forces the young person to be accountable for their actions, as well as providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. Heath J welcomed new Sentencing Act options including intensive supervision, and combination sentences. Reports indicate that IM has had a significant change in attitude while on remand.

Decision:
100 hours community work on both charges (concurrent), 20% of which can be converted by a probation officer into basic work and living skills training. Two years intensive supervision on both charges (concurrent) with special conditions. A “…first and last chance”.