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

S v R , 31 October 2002, Court of Appeal, McGrath, Baragwanath, Salmon JJ, CA 284/02 CA234/02

Name: S v R
Unreported
File number: CA 284/02 CA234/02
Court: Court of Appeal
Location:
Date: 31 October 2002
Judge: McGrath, Baragwanath, Salmon JJ
Charge: sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 12 and 16
CYPFA: s272(3)
Key title: jurisdiction – charge type
Key title: sentencing – unlawful sexual intercourse

Case Summary:
Appeal against conviction (on the basis of jurisdiction), and sentence.

S (14 years old at the time of the offence) had spent the day with a girlfriend aged 12. The girl had consumed some wine, and the pair later had sex. A complaint of rape was laid by the girl’s mother, which was denied by S. S was charged with rape. In the Youth Court, S elected trial by jury. A preliminary hearing was held in the Youth Court, at which he was committed for trial.

Crown later decided to drop the indictment for rape, as it became obvious that the sex was consensual. S pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 12 and 16, and was ordered to come up for sentence if called on for 6 months.

Argument as to whether s272(3) CYPFA or s345(1) of Crimes Act 1961 has precedence and whether the lesser charge should be heard in the Youth Court, or whether it can stay in the High Court for trial. CA compared judgments of Paterson J in R v L,L,S (High Court, Auckland, T12/97, 5 June 1997) and Fisher J in R v PK, AP, RR and DH (High Court, Auckland, T014047, 3 July 2002). The Court preferred Fisher J’s reasoning which highlighted frequent modification to charges during the criminal process, and with appropriate procedural protections for the accused, these changes result in no injustice being done to the accused. Fisher J rejected the proposition that all new charges should be returned to the Youth Court but the CA, in turn, rejected his assertion that the Youth Court commits young people to trial in the High Court in the knowledge that the charges that were originally laid in the YC might be reduced in the higher court.

CA concluded that, in dealing with the passage of an indictment through the Youth Court to the High Court, these Courts are carrying out two separate phases of a single process. Once the matter leaves the Youth Court, the processes change and the provisions of the Crimes Act apply. There is no inconsistency.

On the matter of sentence, the CA commented on the consensual nature of the sex, and cited R v Taylor & Ors [1997] 3 All ER 527 in the English Court of Appeal. The Court also recognised that S would not have been subject to a conviction on his record if the lesser charge, to which he pleaded guilty, had been originally laid in the Youth Court.

Decision: Jurisdiction of the High Court for lesser later charge confirmed. Original sentence quashed, discharge without conviction substituted.