district court logo

R v CC [2018] NZYC 529

Published 15 February 2019

Sentencing — theft — burglary — grievous bodily harm — transfer to District Court — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 208, 283 & 284 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA) — Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39. The young person, CC, appeared for sentencing in relation to two separate sets of offences. Firstly, theft and injuring a person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. 15 days later, while on bail for those offences, CC caused grievous bodily harm to another person with an associated burglary. Tragically, the victim of the second set of offences passed away from his injuries. The first set of offending involved CC and another youth attacking a person wearing rival gang colours. CC kicked and stomped on the victim while they were on the ground and stole their phone. CC expressed no remorse as he believed the victim had wronged him and he was taking 'an eye for an eye'. Bail conditions were that CC had to avoid the central area where that offending occurred and not associate with his co-offender. The second set of offending occurred while CC was breaching both bail conditions. CC was one of the oldest of a group of 5 youths that planned to burgle a business. During this plan the second victim was attacked and was also kicked and stomped while he was on the ground. CC showed limited remorse for this incident, justifying it by saying the victim had attacked the group first. The judge noted the terror the victim must have felt in his last moments and acknowledged the sadness of his loved ones. Two options were put forward for the young person's sentencing; supervision with residence or transfer to the District Court for sentencing. Factors supporting supervision with residence were that this was the first time CC had been sentenced in the Youth Court. It could be argued it was the least restrictive option as CC's ability to think consequentially was not fully developed. The judge noted CC had been exposed to violence throughout his upbringing. He was embroiled in gang culture and looked up to his father who was gang-affiliated. Factors supporting the transfer were that CC won't be under YC for much longer as he is turning 18, the serious and violent nature of the offending, that CC was on bail at the time. The District Court could hold him accountable, protect the interests of public safety, provide longer opportunity of intervention and previous interventions in the Youth Court were unsuccessful. Further aggravating features of the offending were CC's propensity for violence, the seriousness of the offending and the young person's lack of remorse. The judge came to the conclusion that a sentence of supervision with residence would be wholly inadequate in the circumstances. CC was transferred to the District Court for sentencing. Judgment Date: 13 September 2018. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *

Tags