Aggravated robbery — sentencing — whether case should be transferred to the District Court for sentencing — jurisdiction. The young person appeared for sentencing in respect of two charges of aggravated burglary. During the first burglary, the young person had played a peripheral role to the offending; during the second burglary he played a more involved role. In considering whether the matter should be transferred to the District Court for sentencing, the court had regard to the young person's involvement, reasons for involvement in the offending, and the likely effectiveness of interventions available to the Youth Court. The court had particular regard to the young person's lack of previous convictions which had meant that there had been no earlier opportunity for the Youth Court to interact and intervene effectively in the offending pattern of the young person. The court found that, although supervision with residence was a custodial sentence, it had a significantly greater rehabilitative support system than imprisonment. The court accordingly declined to transfer the matter to the District Court and imposed a sentence of six months' residence with supervision and adjourned proceedings under s 311(2)(A) for an early release hearing. Judgment Date: 13 October 2017. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *