Sentencing — transfer to District Court — aggravated robbery — kidnapping — unlawfully taking a motor vehicle — interfering with a motor vehicle — aggravated careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 208 & 284 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — Beijing Rules — New Zealand Police v S D [2018] NZYC 169. The young person appeared for sentencing in relation to 23 charges including two charges of aggravated robbery, two of kidnapping, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, interfering with a motor vehicle and aggravated careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. Over a period of 10 months the young person engaged in a spate of offending, beginning with theft and escalating to kidnapping when a group he was with forced two women into the boot of a car and dangerously drove around until crashing the vehicle. The Police had applied for the young person to be transferred to the District Court for sentencing. It was submitted that the offending was simply too serious to be dealt with in the Youth Court. Intervention and support had been given to the young person prior to his arrest but to no avail. At the time of the hearing, the young person had been in custody for 7 months. Reports detailed the improvement in the young person's attitude and behaviour. He had become engaged in the classroom. He had completed a site safety certificate, had a fork hoist licence and was working towards getting his driver's licence. His family, who supported the young person greatly, were proud of the change in him. The Judge noted that New Zealand was party to the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. This Treaty states that detention or imprisonment should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. It was thought that transfer to the District Court could result in 8 years' imprisonment. While this would protect the community from the young person for this period, he would be unable to receive therapy and educational opportunities that the Youth Court would provide. The young person had the best chance at rehabilitation if he remained in the Youth Court and this would benefit the community in the long run. It was decided that a 6 month sentence of supervision with residence was adequate to address the young person's offending. The application to have CL convicted and transferred to the District Court was declined. Judgment Date: 17 December 2018. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *