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

The Queen v Randall Jeremy Blade, Police v Ricky Lee James Tuhikarama 6 May 2005, District Court, Christchurch, 6 May 2005, Judge Abbott

Name: The Queen v Randall Jeremy Blade, Police v Ricky Lee James Tuhikarama
Unreported
File number: CRI 2007-454
Court: District Court
Location: Christchurch
Date: 6 May 2005
Judge: Judge Abbott
Charge:
CYPFA: s273 Rating:
Key title: Purely Indictable Charge, Sentence

Case Summary:
B appeared for sentence (21) on one charge of aggravated burglary and three of injuring with intent to cause GBH. T (17) appeared on one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of burglary.
T pleaded guilty to the aggravated burglary charge at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing prior to committal for trial.
T did not face the three injuring charges because of the “unsatisfactory procedural provisions” in the CYPFA, in particular the prohibition in s273 on a charge being laid indictable unless it relates to a purely indictable offence.
T as part of a group travelled from Rangiora to Culverden and entered a house without warning. Three young people in the house were subjected to a prolonged and viscous, beating with weapons being used in the attack. The house and three vehicles were also damaged.
T admitted his involvement to the Police on the night of the incident.

Decision:
Judge Abbott referred to principles of sentencing when co-offenders are sentenced by different Judges on different occasions. The starting point adopted for other members of the group was two and a half years imprisonment, which was reduced by one year for mitigating factors.
Judge Abbott, citing R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170, where the CA considered that a starting point of seven years would be justified for aggravated robbery involving forced entry. By analogy, the appropriate starting point in this case would be 6 years imprisonment, but that would cause inconsistency problems with the sentences already imposed on co-offenders.
The appropriate starting point for B and T was four years. B was sentenced to 2 years and nine months imprisonment.
T was allowed a reduction of 2 years for his age (16) at time of the offence. T had had previous YC appearances, and had committed a burglary offence while on bail.
T’s Sentence
1. Two years imprisonment on the aggravated robbery charge
2. On the separate burglary charge, 6 months’ imprisonment, cumulative on the aggravated robbery charges.
Total term two and a half years

Comment
The case highlights the potential problems when a purely indictable charge and related charges, which are indictable but triable summarily, could be laid in respect of a single incident. Judge Abbot considered that s273 of the CYPFA should be amended to allow for a charge which is not purely indictable to be laid indictably if a purely indictable charge is laid concurrently or has already been laid in respect of the same incident.