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

Queen v L , 4 March 2008, District Court, Hamilton, Judge RLB Spear, CRI2006-0698-514

Name: Queen v L
Unreported
File number:
Court: District Court
Location: Hamilton
Date: 4 March 2008
Judge: Judge RLB Spear
Charge:
CYPFA: s231
Key title: nominated person

Case Summary:
Defence object that evidence obtained from L’s son J during investigation of drug charges was obtained unfairly s30(5)(c)Evidence Act 2006.

J (15 years old at the relevant time) was found at school by Police Youth Aid (PYA) with cannabis tinnies. J was arrested pursuant to powers under s214(1) CYPFA. J was taken to the police station and questioned by another officer. The PYA officer decided not to contact J’s father L, as he suspected that L might be involved in further offending. J’s mother was also not contacted despite J asking for his mother to be present.

J confirmed that he did not want a solicitor, and was then provided with a list of adults who could attend, assist, and support him during the interview. J selected a local ‘Youth pastor” H. H was provided with a document setting out the responsibilities of a nominated person. H was present at the interview with J and co-signed his statement. H did not speak during J’s interview with Police as he considered that J did not need any assistance to understand the Police questions. The Court found that H seemed to take his responsibilities seriously, and that the 10 text messages he sent during J’s 3 hour interview did not interfere with his responsibilities to J.

During the interview J identified the source of the cannabis as a shed near his father’s house. A search warrant was issued and cannabis was located in the garage of L’s house.

J was never charged. Counsel for L submitted that J’s rights as a young person were abused by the police and that it would be unfair for the police to rely upon J’s statement. By extension, the Crown should not be permitted to lead evidence of the cannabis found in the search.

The question was whether the evidence was admissible pursuant to s344A of the Crimes Act 1961.

The Court found that Police acted impeccably as far as J was concerned. There was a difficulty in respect of informing J’s parents that he had been arrested, but it would have been quite impractical to do so, given that the police were not sure as to whether J had a stash or more cannabis at his home, and whether that home was with his mother or father. The police did not act contrary to the responsibilities imposed under the CYPFA in respect of J.

Decision:
The evidence of the search and the cannabis found on L’s property was admissable.