Police v S [2000] NZFLR 188 (YC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Reported: (2000) 19 FRNZ 72
File number: CRN 992551752
Date: 14 February 2000
Court: Youth Court, Papakura
Judge: Ryan DCJ
Key Title: Databank Compulsion Order, Orders - type: Discharge - s 282

Summary:
Youth offenders - Blood samples - Databank compulsions order - Whether conviction entered - Section required a conviction to have been entered before jurisdiction arose to make compulsion order - Offender had not denied charge of burglary and was later discharged - Whether admission implied that Crown had proved charge - Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995, s 39 - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 246, 281, 282.

Application:
This was an application for a databank compulsion order.

These proceedings concerned an opposed application under s 39 of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995 for a databank compulsion order. That section conferred jurisdiction to make an order where the young person had been convicted of an offence. Conviction was defined as a finding by the Youth Court that a charge against the young person was proved. The difficulty in these proceedings was that the offender had not denied the charge of burglary when brought before the Court pursuant to s 246 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. The Youth Court jurisdiction was elected and it was noted that he admitted the charge. The information was adjourned and the offender was detained in the custody of the Director-General of Social Welfare. He was then further remanded for the completion of a plan agreed upon at a family group conference. Later the young person was discharged.

The police argued that the fact that the charge was not denied amounted to a conviction because the admission inferred that the charge had been proved. This was contended in spite of s 282 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 which provided that an information which was discharged was deemed never to have been laid. The application was opposed on the basis that the charge had not been proved and that under the s 246 procedure the Court did not have to make such a finding. It was also argued that the discharge of the young person under s 282 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act was equivalent to a discharge under s 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. Under that provision a databank compulsion order could not be made.

Held (declining to make an order)

1. There was no jurisdiction to make an order in this case. Under s 246 the young person was required only to deny or not deny the charge. In this case the charge had not been denied. There was certainly no statutory requirement that the Court make a finding that the charge was proved. The same applied in respect of s 281 which did not create a requirement that the Court find that the charge was proved before discharging the young person. An admission by a person at a family group conference which was subsequently confirmed by the Youth Court was insufficient. There was a clear statutory intention to provide a mechanism for cases to be disposed of without the necessity for the charge to be proved.
2. A discharge under s 282 was equivalent to a discharge under s 19 of the Criminal Justice Act and the same protection was to be afforded.

Back to contents

Police v TLA [2000] DCR 240 (DC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v TLA
Reported: [2000] DCR 240
File number: CRN 9204003881, 3885; 9204003887,3880; 9204003878, 3886
Date: 7 February 2000
Court: District Court, Auckland
Judge: Judge McElrea
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s 275 offer/election; Sentencing - General Principles (e.g. Parity/Jurisdiction)

Summary:
Criminal law - Jurisdiction - Offence of assault and robbery - Accused aged 14 and 15 - Whether to exercise Youth Court Judge's discretion and give accused opportunity of forgoing right to jury trial and of electing to have information heard and determined in Youth Court - Alleged accomplice giving evidence for prosecution - Serious assault on innocent victim - Youth Court sanctions not appropriate for youngest and principal offender - Severance not appropriate - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 275,283(o) - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 173(a).

Children and young persons - Assault - Accused aged 14 and 15 - Whether to exercise Youth Court Judge's discretion and give accused opportunity of forgoing right to jury trial and of electing to have information heard and determined in Youth Court - Youth Court sanctions not appropriate for youngest and principal offender - Severance not appropriate - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 275,283(o).

Application:
This was an application to have a joint charge of assault to be heard in the Youth Court under s 275 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

It was alleged that on 12 August 1999 the three accused and an accomplice, who later gave evidence for the Crown, attacked a girl when she was sitting in a public place. She was punched in the head and body and after falling to the ground, was kicked in the body. The victim was then dragged by her hair to the rear of a nearby building and robbed of $10. Punching to her head and body continued while more money was demanded. She was then dragged into nearby ladies toilets where scissors were taken out of her bag and used as a weapon against her. When she said that she had no more money, one of the accused cut her across her eyebrow. She was then cut across her stomach and also along her right thigh. All three accused denied a joint charge of assault using scissors as a weapon. They were also charged jointly with robbery. Two of the accused were aged 14 and one was aged 15 at the time of the offending, although one of the 14 year-olds had turned 15 by the time of the hearing. Under s 275 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 a Youth Court Judge has a discretion to give an accused the opportunity of forgoing the right to trial by jury and of electing to have the information heard and determined in a Youth Court by a Youth Court Judge. The Crown opposed the giving of such an opportunity and the splitting of trials or hearings.

Held (declining Youth Court jurisdiction)

1. The disadvantages of having two hearings were especially strong in this case given the ages of the complainant and the witness/accomplice. They should be spared the possibility of giving evidence twice.
2. The appropriate range of sentences that might be considered by the Court, depending on the facts, matters yet to be put before the Court by way of victim impact statements and pre-sentence or social worker reports, was best secured by declining Youth Court jurisdiction and leaving those matters to be dealt with by Judge and jury.

Back to contents

Police v TC YC Masterton CRN 3138 & 3139, 11 April 2000

File number: CRN 3138 & 3139
Date: 11 April 2000
Court: Youth Court, Masteron
Judge: Judge Ongley
Key Title: Arrest without warrant (s 214), Admissibility of statements to police/police questioning (ss 215-222): Reasonable compliance, Admissibility of statements to police/police questioning (ss 215-222): Nominated person

Summary:
TC (15) charged with resisting arrest. Police suspected TC of involvement in burglary, theft and interfering with vehicles. Search warrant executed but no evidence found. Three days later Police officer informed TC, at TC's front gate, that he wished to speak to him in relation to burglaries and asked if TC would accompany him to the Police Station; TC responded that he would find his own way there; TC's father intervened and a scuffle ensued; officer used OC spray on TC; TC not informed of s 215 CYPFA rights; TC fell and escaped but was later arrested.

Whether grounds existed for TC's arrest. TC had not committed any purely indictable offence justifying arrest under s 214(2) of the CYPFA; Police not aware of any further offending by TC. Court found no grounds for arrest without warrant. The fact that TC was unwilling to accompany the officer to the Police station and actively resisted such a course did not add to the substance of grounds for arrest. In the absence of any evidence that the young person was attempting to avoid the Police there is no apparent reason why a warrant could not have been issued. Statements made re admissibility of confessional statements.

TC did not nominate a person for the purposes of s 221(2)(b) of the CYPFA but police criticised for not locating his mother and for not giving the nominated person a chance to speak to TC privately; s 221 probably not complied with: R v T [1997] 1 NZLR 341 (HC).

Cases on reasonable compliance discussed. The Court noted that there was a serious question whether there was reasonable compliance within the spirit and object of the legislation.

Decision:
The charge of resisting arrest failed and was dismissed.

Back to contents

Chief Executive of the Department for Child Youth and Family Services v H FC Auckland CYPF 048/397/99, 21 June 2000

File Number: CYPF 048/397/99
Date: 21 June 2000
Court: Family Court, Auckland
Judge: Judge Boshier DCJ
CYPFA: s 283(n); s 280
Key Title: Care and Protection cross-over (s 280): Family Group Conferences/Care and Protection (s 261); Custody (s 238): Chief Executive (s 238(1)(d); Orders - type: Supervision with residence - s 283(n); Reports - Social Worker

Summary:
Care and protection plan failed to work; report by social worker suggests a residential placement be achieved through a Supervision with residence order; social worker advises all institutions are full and cannot guarantee a Supervision with residence order will lead to H being placed in an institution; Police object and say they may have to intervene; Judge concerned that Supervision with residence order should be carried out if made by the Court as "to do otherwise, is to begin to abandon the rule of law".

Decision:
Supervision with residence order; Care and protection plan to be reviewed in November 2000.

Back to contents

Police v G YC Hamilton, 12 July 2000

File number: unknown
Date: 12 July 2000
Court: Youth Court, Hamilton
Judge: Judge Brown
Key Title: Fine - enforcement, Jurisdiction of the Youth Court: charge type

Summary:
G failed to pay $1730 in fines; fines not imposed under s 283(d)-(h) CYPFA but within definition of fines in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; s 88, s 88(3AA) of the Summary Proceedings Act discussed; such fines cannot be enforced on non-payment in Youth Court.

Decision:
Youth Court has no jurisdiction to enforce traffic fines - G to appear in District Court.

Back to contents

Police v TN YC Otahuhu CRN 0248015576, 6 July 2000

File number: CRN 0248015576
Date: 6 July 2000
Court: Youth Court, Otahuhu
Judge: Simpson DCJ
Key Title: Jurisdiction of Youth Court: s 275 offer/election

Summary:
TN (then 14) and two other young people planned to rob a taxi driver; one young person struck taxi driver with folded Coca Cola can; young people stole car and small amount of money; facts admitted at interview. FGC unable to agree; psychologist's report recommended possible rehabilitative measures; care and protection issues; one young person already being dealt with by Youth Court. Public interest in allowing public to go safely about their business balanced against interest of the public in the cessation of offending by young persons such as TN. W, A, M, P, T, N, B, H & S v The Registrar, Youth Court, Tokoroa (CA166/69); R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 discussed. Given TN's age, cannot convict and transfer to District Court if dealt with by Youth Court. Principles of CYPFA; importance of rehabilitation of 15 year olds.

Decision:
Youth Court jurisdiction offered.

Back to contents

Police v C [2000] NZFLR 961 (YC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Reported: [2000] 19 FRNZ 715
File number: 154/00
Date: 8 August 2000
Court: Youth Court, Otahuhu
Judge: Judge Carruthers
Key Title: Delay (s 322), Family Group Conferences: Timeframes/limits: Court ordered

Summary:
Children and young persons - Application for dismissal of information - Young person charged with offence of sexual violation - Delay of seventeen months in charging the young person - Whether information should be dismissed for unnecessary and undue delay - Necessity for consultation prior to proceedings being instituted - Necessity for consultation - Meaning of "consultation" - Whether delay too great in this case - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 56, 208, 245, 247, 249, 322.

Application:
This was an application for the dismissal of an information laid against a young person on the ground of unnecessary and undue delay.

The defendant, aged 16 at the time of the offence and now aged 17, was charged with sexual violation by unlawful connection which was an indictable charge. It was alleged that the offence occurred in January 1999. In June 1999 a complaint was laid with the police. The complaint file was sent to the local Child Abuse team and an investigation was commenced. A referral was made to the Child, Youth and Family Services department in August 1999 and subsequently consultations occurred between the Police and the Service which continued until November 1999, A family group conference was held on 8 November 1999 and it was agreed that the young person would complete a six month plan that included counselling. The family group conference was reconvened in June 2000 following the raising of concerns about the young person by the counselling service. The conference agreed that the charge should be laid in the Youth Court and that matters should then be referred to the District Court because the young person was then 17 years of age.

Counsel for the young person argued that the information should be dismissed due to unnecessary and undue delay in bringing the matter before the Court.

Held (dismissing the information)

1. Section 245 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 provided that proceedings were not to be instituted against a young person unless the Youth Justice Co-ordinator and the informant had been consulted and the matter considered at a family group conference. Consultation under the Act required a genuine attempt to confer with an open mind about other possibilities of intervening. There would be occasions when, for extraordinary reasons which would have involved obtaining a number of assessments and reports, a consultation may take the length of time taken in this case. Therefore the extraordinary length of time taken did not in the circumstances invalidate a proper "consultation" within the meaning of the Act.
2. Whilst there were no strict time limits involved, the actions in this case in laying and proceeding with the information had been unnecessarily and unduly protracted. Given this and because the public interest would be better served by applying to have the young person made a ward of Court, the information would be dismissed.

Back to contents

Police v JT YC Hamilton CRN 9219035462, 24 August 2000

File number: CRN 9219035462
Date: 24 August 2000
Court: Youth Court, Hamilton
Judge: Judge Twaddle
Key Title: Databank Compulsion Order

Summary:
Whether non-denial of an offence in the Youth Court amounts to a finding by the Youth Court that a charge against a young person has been proved for the purposes of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995.

JT charged with indecent assault, not denied; record showed charge admitted at FGC; order made under s 283(c) of the CYPFA. Police applied for order under s 39 of the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995 for Databank Compulsion Order requiring JT to give blood sample. Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act 1995, s 2 provides that a conviction includes "a finding, by a Youth Court, that a charge against a young person is proved". Cloke v Police HC Hamilton AP45/00, 13 June 2000, where Hammond J said that it is only if there is a plea of guilty or the charge has been proved by evidence that a s 283(o) conviction and transfer can be made, and Police v S [2000] NZFLR 188 (YC) discussed; Judge found Cloke applied in this case as although Cloke related to whether an offence was proved for the purposes of s 283(o), "the propositions underlying that decision are broad in principle".

Decision:
Charge against JT not proved and application dismissed.

Back to contents

Police v Prime [2000] DCR 698 (DC)

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

File number: CR9048010748
Date: 16 August 2000
Court: District Court, Otahuhu
Judge: Judge Clapham
Key Title: Youth Court procedure; Jurisdiction of the Youth Court – Age

Summary:
Children and young persons - Jurisdiction - Driving with excess blood alcohol - Application to determine if information was a nullity because it was laid in the District Court rather than the Youth Court - Whether proceedings invalid because defendant should have been dealt with in the Youth Court - Interpretation of s 205 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 - Whether a technicality as to filing an information in the District Court rather than the Youth Court should be determinative - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 2,272 - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 14, 205 - Interpretation Act 1999, s 5.

Statutes - Interpretation - Jurisdiction - Application to determine if information was a nullity because it was laid in the District Court rather than the Youth Court - Whether a technicality as to filing an information in the District Court rather than the Youth Court should be determinative - Interpretation of s 205 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 - Summary Proceedings Act 1957, ss 14,205 - Interpretation Act 1999, s 5.

Argument:
This was an argument as to whether or not an information was invalid because at the time of the alleged offence the defendant was entitled to be dealt with in the Youth Court, the information having been laid in the District Court. Section 205 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was relied on.

The defendant who was born on 3 January 1982 was charged in the District Court that on 18 December 1998, he was driving a motor vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his blood was excessive. He was only 16 at the time of the alleged offence.

The defendant first appeared before the Court on 29 March 1999 and was then variously remanded for a substantial period.

Because of the defendant's date of birth the information should have been laid in the Youth Court rather than the District Court. Clearly, the defendant was a "young person" in terms of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

The prosecution accepted that it relied on s 205 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The prosecution submitted that in terms of that section no conviction, order, other process or proceeding should be held invalid by reason only that at the time a defendant was convicted he or she should have been dealt with in the Youth Court. The prosecution submitted that the section should not be read as being limited to instances where the defendant had been convicted, and applied prior to conviction.

Held (finding the information valid)

1. Section 205 of the Summary Proceedings Act by use of the words "proceedings not invalid because defendant should have been dealt with in Youth Court" required those words should be given the intention that they meant, namely, that the information falling within the definition of proceedings, if the defendant should have been dealt with in the Youth Court but was not, did not render the proceedings invalid. Police v Dabrowski [1996] NZFLR 234, [1996] DCR 40, considered and distinguished.
2. The words "no conviction" in subs 205(1) was clearly an alternative to order, other process or proceedings. The words "no conviction" were not determinative of the words "order", "other process" or "proceeding". The direction of restriction within the subsection was that the proceedings should not be held invalid by reason only that at the time the defendant was convicted he or she should by reason of his or her age have been dealt with in the Youth Court.
3. No conviction had been entered. There was no requirement as provided in s 205(2) to grant a rehearing. The proceedings themselves were not invalid. The technicality as to filing in the District Court as opposed to changing the heading of the information so that it was filed in the Youth Court should not be a factor that was determinative of the proceedings.

Back to contents

Police v R (2000) 19 FRNZ 590 (YC)

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Reported: Police v JR [2001] NZFLR 49; also reported as Police v Rangihika [2000] DCR 866
File number: CRN 0255019855
Date: 8 September 2000
Court: Youth Court, Pukekohe
Judge: Judge McElrea
Key Title: Sentencing in the adult courts - Application of Youth Justice Principles, Orders - type: Conviction and transfer to the District Court for sentencing - s 283(o): Aggravated robbery, Orders - Supervision with Residence - s 283(n); Objects/Principles of the CYPFA; Principles of Youth Justice (s 208)

Summary:
Youth justice - Sentence - Transfer of proceeding - Aggravated robbery - Different sentencing regime provided for young people - Application of Criminal Justice Act regime - No automatic assumption that aggravated robbery must be dealt with in District Court - Offender could be effectively dealt with in Youth Court - Supervision with residence appropriate given seriousness of crime and defendant's involvement - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, ss 4, 208, 283(o), 284, 290; Criminal Justice Act 1985.

Sentence:
This was a hearing to determine whether the offender should be sentenced in the Youth Court or convicted and transferred to the District Court for sentence under s 283(o) Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.

The accused, R, had been a party to an aggravated robbery at the age of 15 years. Having previously obtained a soft airgun which was a replica of a semi-automatic pistol, he travelled to Central Auckland with his co-accused, T, and two female associates. They discussed committing a robbery but failed to find any suitable victims so decided to rob a 24-hour service station store. T approached the only staff member, pointed the pistol at him, and held him around the neck. R went to the cash register. As he could not open it, he removed the unit and left the store. When the victim tried to break free, T struck him on the head with the pistol and kicked him. T and R forced open the cash register and shared the $2,500 they found there between themselves.

The victim had been badly affected by the incident and had given up his job as a result. R had admitted guilt and written a letter of apology, and his family had offered to make reparation. He had no previous Court appearances, and his family hoped to support a programme which would keep him out of prison and further trouble. A family group conference failed to reach agreement on whether R should be sentenced in the Youth Court or convicted and transferred to the District Court.

Held sentencing R to supervision with residence:

1. The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 has its own special sentencing regime for young people. It is a very different sentencing regime from that applying to persons 17 years and over under the Criminal Justice Act 1985. However, if a young person is convicted and transferred to the District Court, the Court of Appeal's comments in R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170; (2000) 17 CRNZ 272 concerning sentences for armed robbery are very relevant. While there may still be room for suspended terms of imprisonment coupled with community-based sentences in some cases, it could not be assumed that a case like the present would receive such treatment. (p 592, line 31)
   R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170; (2000) 17 CRNZ 272 (CA) considered
2. There is no automatic assumption that an aggravated robbery case must be dealt with in the District Court. While there were aggravated robbery cases where [(2000) 19 FRNZ 600, 591]only a term of imprisonment was appropriate, this was not, on balance, such a case. R was not so close to age 17 that there was no time left for him to be dealt with under Youth Court principles, and he did not have a previous record which suggested he was incapable of being dealt with in the Youth Court. (p 596, line 10)
3. R should be treated as principal offender. However, the weapon used was not a real firearm, though just as terrifying for the victim, and the risk of injury was not the same. There had been minimal planning, and the degree of physical violence was not great. R's share of reparation could be made in full. Acknowledging the need to protect vulnerable employees of such businesses, R could be dealt with in the Youth Court by a sentence of 3 months at a Department of Child, Youth and Family Services residence followed by 6 months' supervision, the most serious form of sentence the Youth Court could impose. (p 596, line 25).

Back to contents

Police v G FC Auckland CYPF No 088/24/00, 4 December 2000

File Number: CYPF No 088/24/00
Date: 4 October 2000
Court: Family Court, Auckland
Judge: Judge Boshier
Key Title: Care and Protection cross over (s 280): Family Group Conferences/Care and Protection (s 261); Secure care (ss 367-383A).

Summary:
Application under s 14(1)(e) CYPFA. Young person had a history of serious offending; specialist reports revealed that the young person had a long history of physical abuse including significant head injuries which resulted in behavioural problems and an inability to understand the consequences of his actions; plan proposed; principles in dealing with cases involving child offenders discussed; custody order in favour of Chief Executive made; support order and services orders made; reparation order inappropriate in this case; discussion about inability of Court to attach conditions to custody orders in the light of Chief Executive v the Family Court [2000] NZFLR 865; no conditions attached to custody order; case conference ordered.

Decision:
Secure care.

Back to contents

Police v Kane DC Otahuhu, 13 October 2000

File number: not available
Date: 13 October 2000
Court: District Court, Otahuhu
Judge: Clapham DCJ
Key Title: Sentencing in the adult Courts - Aggravated Robbery; Sentencing in the adult Courts - Serious assault (including GBH)

Summary:
Kane charged with aggravated robbery and assault with intent to rob after attack on a taxi driver and later assault on a 16-year-old male. In mitigation: guilty plea, Kane's youth, no prior convictions; Aggravating features: pre-meditation and the application of force; offending while on bail and showing lack of remorse for first offence. Criminal Justice Act 1985, s 5(a); starting point of 5 years; Judge considered matter in total rather than imposing a cumulative sentence in respect of the second offending.

Decision:
2.5 years on each charge.

Back to contents

Police v C YC Auckland CRN 0204004234-36, 21 December 2000

File number: CRN 0204004234-36
Date: 21 December 2000
Court: Youth Court, Auckland
Judge: Judge Simpson
Key Title: Family Group Conference - Timeframes/limits: Intention to charge

Summary:
C's FGC delayed as Police provided insufficient details of victim's address; whether time limit set out in s 249(4)(b) CYPFA is a mandatory time limit.

Section 249(2) creates a mandatory time limit and failure to convene within 21 days invalidates the FGC and therefore removes the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the Information before it: H v Police [1999] NZFLR 996 (HC) per Smellie J.

Held:
No basis for distinguishing the decision in H v Police. Wording in ss 249(4)(b) and 249(2) sufficiently similar even though time periods for convening FGCs are different. Court satisfied that Youth Justice Co-ordinator not given adequate information and not able to give notice to the victim who was an entitled person. Repeated requests to the Police for further information failed to yield other details.

Decision:
No jurisdiction; Informations dismissed.

Back to contents

Police v E YC Manukau CRN 0287007441-42, 21 December 2000

File number: CRN 0287007441-42; CRN 0257007828; CRN 025008385
Date: 21 December 2000
Court: Youth Court, Manukau
Judge: Judge Simpson
Key Title: Jurisdiction of Youth Court - Age; Orders - type: Conviction and transfer to District Court for sentencing - s 283(o): Other; Orders - type: Conviction and transfer to District Court for sentencing - s 283(o): Aggravated robbery, Orders - type: Supervision with residence - s 283(n).

Summary:
E was 14 years, 3 months at time of serious offending; charges not denied. Whether person who is now 15 but who was 14 at the time of the offending can be convicted and transferred to District Court under s 283(o); and, if so, whether E should be so dealt with. Held: Cannot transfer E to District Court as only 14 at date of alleged offence; s 2(2) CYPFA; ss 4(2) and 8 Criminal Justice Act 1985. Can only impose penalties open to Court at time of offending. Maximum flexibility in sentencing is at the point of the decision on jurisdiction, namely whether the matter will be dealt with in the Youth Court or in the High Court. If Youth Court jurisdiction declined, then fullest range of sentencing options open, if not, then s 283(o) applies if defendant 15 or older. CYPFA s 290; suitable alternatives exist; special rehabilitative measures of Youth Court as recommended by social worker appropriate.

Decision:
Order - Supervision with residence s 283(n).

Back to contents

R v Baker DC Wanganui CRN 0283007459, 11 December 2000

File Number: CRN 0283007459
Date: 11 December 2000
Court: District Court, Wanganui
Judge: Judge Becroft
Key Title: Sentencing in the adult courts: Aggravated robbery, Principles of Youth Justice (s 208).

Summary:
Sentencing notes. Young person (15) charged with aggravated robbery; was declined opportunity to be dealt with in the Youth Court under s 276 CYPFA; guilty plea entered; Judge considered mitigating and aggravating factors; aggravating factors: imprisonment inevitable, robbery planned, defendants armed, victims vulnerable. Mitigating factors: difficult upbringing; guilty plea; full-time employment found and employer wishing to support B's rehabilitation. Judge considered Youth Court principles; noted that the young person had reformed his behaviour but that there was a strong case that he should serve a term of imprisonment. Youth justice principles emphasise reform and rehabilitation.

Decision:
Sentence of two years imprisonment suspended for two years; supervision for 18 months; reparation of $1,000 to be paid to victims.

Back to contents