R v Hudson

This appeal against conviction following trial in the District Court requires us to resolve difficult issues of interpretation of the provisions in Part 4 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (the Act). The appellant was charged jointly with a young person with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a purely indictable offence. The issue on appeal is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant. The appeal was filed more than three years out of time, but we extend the time for appeal because of the unusual jurisdictional issues that the appeal raises. The appellant argues that s 277, which deals with all matters where a young person and an adult are charged jointly, is mandatory and overrides the provisions which would otherwise apply if the young person had been charged alone or jointly with another young person. The Crown contends that s 277 is an administrative provision, which must be read together with the specific and detailed procedural requirements in ss 272 – 276. We conclude that s 274 governs the process to be followed for depositions hearings (for both the young person and the adult) where a young person and an adult are jointly charged with a purely indictable offence, or where they are jointly charged with an indictable offence and the young person has elected trial by jury. This conclusion reflects the absence of any provision indicating that there should be separate deposition hearings for the adult and the young person, the important protections for the young person in the s 274 process and the lack of any disadvantage to the adult from that process being adopted. We extend the time for appealing, but dismiss the appeal.