Youth Justice Cases

Question 1

Police v D (3 May 2002) YC, Kaitaia, CRN 4229004579, Druce DCJ detention under S. 48.

What was the BACKGROUND regarding this case?

Answer 1

• A youth was removed by Police from a private property and taken to a Police station
• Youth was unlawfully present, in possession of alcohol and drunk
• Before being taken, the Youth advised a Police Officer his name, his telephone number, address and details of his grandmother whom he lived with.
• This information was not given to the Police Officers who were transporting the Youth back to the Police station.
• In the processing room, the Youth became agitated when questioned about his details and punched a Police officer.
• The Youth was charged with assault on Police.

THE CHARGE WAS DEFENDED ON THE BASIS THAT POLICE ACTED UNLAWFULLY.

Question 2

Police v D (3 May 2002) YC, Kaitaia, CRN 4229004579, Druce DCJ detention under S. 48.

What were the ISSUEs surrounding this case for the Defense counsel?

Answer 2

• Counsel for the Youth submitted that Police had UNLAWFULLY DETAINED the Youth
• Police should have taken the Youth home and not further questioned him at the Police station.

Question 3

Police v D (3 May 2002) YC, Kaitaia, CRN 4229004579, Druce DCJ detention under S. 48.

What were the ISSUEs surrounding this case for the Police?

Answer 3

• POLICE submitted that the Youths attendance at the station was NECESSARY to FACILITATE Police getting in touch with the Caregiver.
• Police also relied on a particular interest in the Youth as he was one of the local youths on a “special list”.

Question 4

Police v D (3 May 2002) YC, Kaitaia, CRN 4229004579, Druce DCJ detention under S. 48.

What DECISIONS were made by the Court?

Answer 4

• Purpose of S. 48 - Care and Protection of YP
• S. 48 requires the WELFARE and INTERESTS of the child to be put first
• S. 48 does not AUTHORISE DETENTION of C or YP at Police stations (although a Police station may provide an intermediary means of delivering the child to their parent, guardian, caregiver or social worker.
• Although Police have an EXPRESS power to use such force as may REASONABLY BE NECESSARY in delivering the C or YP - Police ought to minimize potentially harmful experiences for the C or YP.

Question 5

Police v D (3 May 2002) YC, Kaitaia, CRN 4229004579, Druce DCJ detention under S. 48.

What were the FINDINGS of the Court?

Answer 5

• Police acted REASONABLY in taking the youth to the station as an intermediate step in returning him.
• Police failed to consider the Youths interests in choosing to take him through the secure area.
• By taking him in the secure area, Police detained the Youth beyond their lawful authority.
• Police failed to ascertain whether the Youth preferred to be returned home or to a social worker.
• There was no evidence that Police informed the Youth as to WHY he was detained.
• The Police suggestion that further inquiries were necessary indicated that Police were BLURRING the PURPOSE of the Youths presence in the Police station.
• Police had no need to question the Youth, as they had the information that they required to return the Youth to the appropriate person.

Question 6

Police v D (3 May 2002) YC, Kaitaia, CRN 4229004579, Druce DCJ detention under S. 48.

What further COMMENTS were made regarding this case?

Answer 6

• S. 48 is to be used for the limited PURPOSE of returning a C or YP to an appropriate person.
• S. 48 ONLY ALLOWS the Police to TAKE the C or YP and with their CONSENT return them home.
• If they do not wish to be returned home, then Police shall PLACE the C or YP in the CUSTODY of the Chief Executive by DELIVERING them to a social worker.
• An arrest of a C or YP can only be justified under S. 214.
• If a C or YP is arrested under S. 214, they can be released without charge under S. 234(a).

Question 7

Police v T-M (31 January 2002) YC, Whangarei, CRN 1288016733-37, Boshier DCJ - Arrest Guidelines under S. 214.

What was the BACKGROUND regarding this case?

Answer 7

• A number of BURGLARIES had been reported in the central Whangarei business district over a relatively short period of time.
• During routine patrolling of the district, T who was known to Police as a Youth Offender was seen in Central Whangarei in the early hours of the morning.
• Police invoked S. 48 and required T to return to the Police station where he was interviewed about recent burglaries.
• Approx. 3 weeks later, Police went to T’s address. He was interviewed a second time during which a signed statement was obtained from T. T was arrested for burglary.

Question 8

Police v T-M (31 January 2002) YC, Whangarei, CRN 1288016733-37, Boshier DCJ - Arrest Guidelines under S. 214.

What occurred during the PROCEEDINGS for Counsel?

Answer 8

• Counsel for the Youth submitted that Police had UNLAWFULLY detained the Youth. He should have been taken home. He should not have been further questioned at the Police station.
• Subsequently T’s counsel made an application for costs to be imposed on the Police.

Question 9

Police v T-M (31 January 2002) YC, Whangarei, CRN 1288016733-37, Boshier DCJ - Arrest Guidelines under S. 214.

What occurred during the PROCEEDINGS for Police?

Answer 9

• Police submitted that the Youths attendance at the station was necessary to facilitate Police getting in touch with the Caregiver.
• Police had no reliable means to contact the Caregiver in public.
• Police also relied on a particular interest in the Youth as he was one of the local youths on a “special list”.

Question 10

Police v T-M (31 January 2002) YC, Whangarei, CRN 1288016733-37, Boshier DCJ - Arrest Guidelines under S. 214.

What was ordered by Judge Boshier as a result?

Answer 10

• In a subsequent hearing on the issue of costs, Judge Boshier found the Police had misused the Court process and ordered the Police to pay costs of $1,000.

Question 11

Police v T-M (31 January 2002) YC, Whangarei, CRN 1288016733-37, Boshier DCJ - Arrest Guidelines under S. 214.

What were the DECISIONS made?

Answer 11

• S. 48 should not be used by Police Officers for the SOLE PURPOSE of taking into custody a CYP who is suspected of having committed a crime.
• If a Police Officer believes that a CYP has committed an offence, arrest may be considered but only if S. 214 would permit it.
• S. 208 of the Act requires that Criminal Proceedings should not be initiated unless there are no other means of dealing with the matter. Any proceedings taken must take the least restrictive form appropriate to the circumstances.
• Police may not arrest a YP simply as a means of requiring a YP to face the consequences of offending.
• Generally, unless the CYP is arrested as permitted by S. 214, Police Officers must consult a Youth Justice Coordinator.

NOTE: BE AWARE THAT SOME OF THE ABOVE WORDING HAS CHANGED DUE TO THE TERMINOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

Question 12

Police v T [1998] DCR 538 - s214 and detention in custody.

What are the FACTS surrounding this case?

Answer 12

• The Defendant is T - aged 14.
• On 6 May 1998 he was leaving s Suprette with 2 packets of biscuits and 1 packet of chips without paying.
• A Police Officer who happened to be in the Suprette, instructed him to stop. T did not.
• T discarded the food items as he was jumping a property fence.
• He was apprehended, arrested and placed in Police custody. He was charged with shoplifting.
• At the time T was the subject of a supervision order relating to 17 charges.
• T remained in Police custody until he was brought to Court just over 24 hours later.
• Police submitted that the arrest was necessary to stop T from committing further offences.

Question 13

Police v T [1998] DCR 538 - s214 and detention in custody.

What was the role of the YOUTH ADVOCATE?

Answer 13

• The Youth Advocate questioned the basis of the arrest.
• The fact that T was not brought to Court and dealt with promptly and the basis of T’s continued detention in Police custody.

Question 14

Police v T [1998] DCR 538 - s214 and detention in custody.

Explanation of decision held by the Court regarding this case - breach under S. 214?

Answer 14

• The continuation of the arrest unnecessarily was in breach S. 214.
• While the initial arrest might have been justified - the time frame in question must be the time of arrest and when the Defendant was brought before the Court.
• The mere fact that the Defendant had other charges and the subject of a supervision order did not mean that he could be arrested when ever he re-offended.
• A single charge of shoplifting was not such as to that the Defendant without arrest would continue shoplifting or commit any other offence.

Question 15

Police v T [1998] DCR 538 - s214 and detention in custody.

Explanation of decision held by the Court regarding this case - breach under NZ BOR Act?

Answer 15

Failure to bring the Defendant to Court constituted a breach of the YP’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to have the matter dealt with on the same day. A person arrested in the morning ought to be dealt with that afternoon except possibly in unusual circumstances.

Question 16

Police v T [1998] DCR 538 - s214 and detention in custody.

Explanation of decision held by the Court regarding this case - breach of the law?

Answer 16

• The fact that the YP had spent 24 hours in Police custody including a night in Police cells was a serious breach of the Law.
• Given the very limited grounds for the Court to remand a YP in Police custody under S. 239(2), the Police should be particularly careful not to hold YP’s in custody unnecessarily.

Question 17

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

What were the FACTS for this case - what happened?

Answer 17

• 2x YP TP (aged 14) and CG (aged 16) were charged in relation to an incident on 07 Jan 2012.
• Both were initially charged with Aggravated Robbery jointly with CG’s sister J-LG (aged 17).

Question 18

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

What were the FACTS for this case - what did Police do?

Answer 18

• At approx. 6pm - 2x Constables spoke to 2x young girls who said they were the Victims of an assault in which one of the girls’ pink wallets was stolen.
• One of the Constables noted the descriptions given in his notebook.
• He gave evidence the Complainants gave a description of 2x females - one who matched the description of J-LG (aged 17) and the other description he said related to TP. No physical description related to CG according to his evidence.
• Police later saw a group of 5x girls walking down the street and spoke with them. The girls denied any involvement in the Aggravated Robbery.
• One Constable took photographs of each of the girls on the street and said that the purpose of the photographs was because there was some uncertainty as to whether the girls in this group had been the ones involved in the assault.
• Based on the description given by the 2x Complainants Police concluded that the YP TP and CG and CG’s older sister were involved in the incident.

Question 19

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

What were the FACTS for this case - what happened as a result of Police findings regarding the incident?

Answer 19

• They were both arrested for Robbery and taken to the Police station where they were detained in Police custody for over 36 hours until they were bailed without Police opposition by the Youth Court on a Monday morning.

Question 20

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

What were the FACTS for this case - what reasons were provided by Police for the arrest under S. 214?

Answer 20

• In supplementary statements filed for the preliminary hearing the Constables said that they believed it was necessary to arrest TP and CG without warrant pursuant to S. 214 for the following reasons:

. To prevent further offending, given that they believed that the girls including TP and CG were together and wanted to walk off away from Police.
. To prevent loss or destruction of evidence relating to robbery. They understood that a pink wallet had been stolen in the alleged robbery and each said she believed that TP or CG would have destroyed or got rid of the wallet and arrest was necessary to prevent this.
. The Police officers said that they believed it was necessary to prevent interference with witnesses because the Complainants lived close by and that intimidation was likely.

Question 21

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

What were the ISSUES for this case?

Answer 21

• The issues for the Court concerned the extent to which the warrantless arrests were justified in this case.
• The power Police had in this case to take the YP’s in custody after their arrest.
• In determining that the arrests under S. 214 were not justifiable and the Appellants could have been proceeded against by way of S. 245 Summons, the Court relied on the following matters:

. While the arrests were for Aggravated Robbery, no questions were asked of the Appellants pertaining to the wallet or its whereabouts. All questions asked were pertaining to assault.
. The Appellants complied with Police requests for information and did not threaten to ‘walk away’ during questioning.
. They were unknown to Police and Social Services Agencies.
. The Appellants did not know the Complainants or where they lived so were unlikely to pose a threat to the Complainants.

Question 22

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

The ISSUES for this case - what the Court concluded?

Answer 22

• The Court concluded the Police Officers did not have reasonable grounds to consider that it was necessary to arrest either TP or CG to prevent them committing further offences or to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence or interfering with witnesses.

Question 23

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

The ISSUES for this case - CONSEQUENCES for the arrests?

Answer 23

• The consequences of the arrests in this case were severe.
• One of the Appellants was breastfeeding her 4 month old baby and was forcibly separated from her child.
• Both appellants had their clothing removed, including underwear and were issued with Police-issue clothes during their stay.

Question 24

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

The ISSUES for this case - under S. 236?

Answer 24

• S. 236 requires joint certification by Police and a Senior social worker in order for a YP to be detained for longer than 25 hours.
• There was no such certification in this case.
• There was no authority in this case for Police to detain a YP in Police custody for longer than 25 hours without satisfying the provision of S. 236.

Question 25

Police v CG CRI-2012-278-002, 003 YC 9 July 2012 - s214, s236

What was the RESULT of this case?

Answer 25

The informations were dismissed.