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

Police v GC , 13 February 2008, Youth Court, Manukau, Judge Harvey, CRN 07292000771-000988

Name: Police v GC
Unreported
File number: CRN 07292000771-000988
Court: Youth Court
Location: Manukau
Date: 13 February 2008
Judge: Judge Harvey
Charge: stealing a handbag, assisting another to avoid conviction
CYPFA:
Key title: evidence

Case Summary:
GC faces two charges of stealing a handbag, and assisting another to avoid conviction.

Whether two associated defendants, who are being dealt with separately, can be compelled as witnesses for the prosecution in terms of s73 Evidence Act 2006. The two associated defendants have followed Youth Court procedure, insofar as they have ‘not denied’ the allegations against them, have been to a family group conference, have completed plans devised by those conferences, and have had their matters concluded. The issue is whether the two associated defendants have plead guilty, or been found guilty, or, having been found guilty of the offence, have been sentenced or otherwise dealt with for that offence in terms of s73? The concept of pleading guilty is generally not used in Youth Court procedure.

Crown argued that the Youth Court’s use of proof by admission is essentially the same as a plea of guilty.

Judge Harvey refers to C v Police (2000) 19 FRNZ 357, in which Hammond J suggests that not denying, or admitting a charge could not support a conviction in terms of s283(o) CYPFA. The Judge compares that ruling with Police v M (2001) 20 FRNZ 199, in which Judge Harding takes the Court’s notation of “PAFGC” as providing for sufficient “intent and legal consequences” and being equivalent in the summary jurisdiction of proof at defended hearing or proof by pleading guilty. PAFGC stands for proved by admission at a family group conference, and is a notation made by the Court on the information following a family group conference at which a young person has admitted a charge which has previously been not denied.

In finding for the Crown, Judge Harvey focuses on the concept of proof, and equates proof following a defended hearing in the Youth Court, with proof following an admission by an accused young person. He distinguishes C v Police by explaining that a plea of “not denied” is not about an acknowledgement of criminal responsibility, but simply allows a Court to order a family group conference.

Also discussion of whether one the co-defendants was compellable if proceedings were found not to be ‘determined’ for the purposes of the Evidence Act because that young person had gone through the Youth Court process, and subsequently been discharged under s282(1) CYPFA. Crown argued that s282 discharges are legal fictions, and therefore a young person discharged under this section should be considered as a simple eye witness, and not a co-defendant. The Court cited Police v JL (2006) DCR 404, and held that a discharge under s282(1) is a determination in a proceeding, defining determination a dispositive act in a proceeding.

Decision: For the purposes of s73(3)(c) Evidence Act 2006, proof by admission in Youth Court has the same legal effect as a plea of guilty. A discharge under s282(1) CYPFA 1989 is a determination for the purposes of s73(2)(b).