R v AB - [2022] NZHC 1761

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-209-000241

[2022] NZHC 1761

THE QUEEN

v

AB

Hearing: 19 July 2022 via telephone conference

Appearances:

K A White for the Crown

C J Lange for the Defendant

H R Hancock for the Department of Corrections and Oranga Tamariki

Judgment:

21 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] AB1 is aged 17. He has been in the Youth Prison, Te Puna Wai [awaiting sentence after pleading guilty to manslaughter].

[2]Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, relevantly states:

175 Remand of defendants aged 17 to 20 years

1 AB’s name has been anonymised and any identifying particulars have been redacted, pursuant to paras [22]-[24] of this judgment.

R v AB [2022] NZHC 1761 [21 July 2022]

(1)This section applies to a person who is remanded pending hearing or sentence and who appears to the court to be of or over the age of 17 years but under the age of 20 years.

(1A) Despite section 15 of the Bail Act 2000, if the person is aged 17 years and is charged with, or convicted of, any offence in the District Court or the High Court, the court may remand that person in custody, and if the court does so,—

(a) the person must be remanded in the custody of the chief executive of the department responsible for the administration of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, unless that chief executive and the chief executive of the Department of Corrections agree on the matter in subsection (1B):

(b) if the 2 chief executives agree on the matter in subsection (1B), the person may instead be remanded in custody in a youth unit of a prison.

(1B) The matter that must be agreed by the 2 chief executives is that detention in a youth unit of a prison is necessary to ensure the safety of a young person (as defined in section 2(1)) who is in the custody of the chief executive.

(2)Despite section 15 of the Bail Act 2000, if the person appears to the court to be aged 18 or 19 years, the court may—

(a) remand the defendant in the custody of the chief executive of the department for the time being responsible for the administration of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 if—

(i)in the court’s opinion it is desirable to do so by reason of special circumstances; and

(ii)the court is satisfied that the chief executive of that department is able and willing to keep the person in custody in accordance with this section; or

(b) direct that the defendant be detained in a prison if, in the court’s opinion, no other course is desirable having regard to all of the circumstances.

[3] The Chief Executives or Oranga Tamariki and Ara Poutama Aotearoa (the Department of Corrections) have agreed it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v AB

Details

AGLC: R v AB [2022] NZHC 1761
Case: [2022] NZHC 1761
Decision Date: 21 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves AB, a 17-year-old awaiting sentencing for manslaughter. The dispute is over the appropriate facility for AB's custody to ensure safety and rehabilitation. The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, presided over the matter. The central legal issue was whether AB should be transferred from the custody of Oranga Tamariki to a youth unit in a Corrections’ prison for safety reasons.

The court examined the escalation in AB's violent behavior, as evidenced by multiple incident reports, and the limitations of Oranga Tamariki's facilities to manage such behavior. It also considered the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which allows for such transfers if both the chief executives of Oranga Tamariki and Corrections deem it necessary for safety. The court noted that AB's behavior had become increasingly aggressive and violent since he entered his guilty plea, posing risks to both staff and other young people in custody. The court accepted that transferring AB to a youth unit in a prison was necessary to ensure the safety of other young people and to comply with AB's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The court ruled that AB should be remanded in custody in a youth unit at Christchurch Men’s Prison. It also ordered the permanent suppression of AB's name to protect his right to rehabilitation and to prevent potential harm from publicity, in line with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This decision was made to balance the need for open justice with the specific needs and rights of a young person in the criminal justice system.

Orders