Dismissal of charges — unduly protracted length of time between offending and hearing — prosecutorial abuse of process — indecency between males — indecent assault of another male — doing an indecent act with another male — inducing another male to do an indecent act — “young person” — Crimes Act 1961, ss 140 (repealed) & 141 (repealed) — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 2, 4 & 322 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147 — H v R [2019] NZSC 69 — R v M [2011] NZCA 673 — Solomon v R [2019] NZCA 616 — R v M [2020] NZCA 539 — Churchward v R [2011] NZCA, (2011) 25 CRNZ 446. The defendant faced eight charges related to sex offending against another male. The charges were brought under s 141 of the Crimes Act, as it was from 1962 until 1986. The prosecution alleged that the offending had occurred between 1968 and 1970, when the defendant had been between the ages of 17 and 19. The defendant argued that the offending had actually occurred before he turned 17. He applied for all of the charges to be dismissed: either under the Oranga Tamariki Act (OTA) on the grounds that the time between the offending and the current hearing had been unduly protracted; alternatively, under the Criminal Procedure Act because this was appropriate given the amount of time that had passed, or because to allow the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of process. The Court found that although the defendant was aged in his sixties, it was appropriate to deal with him as if he were a young person for the purpose of the proceedings. Reviewing case-law, the Court considered it relevant that the offending was serious; that the victim had been a child; that the defendant had been close to or at adult age at the time of offending; and that he had admitted the offending. However, it was also relevant that the defendant had not re-offended in more than 50 years. Given that the length of time between the offending and the current hearing comprised some three quarters of the defendant's life, the Court found that elapsed time was "unduly protracted" for the purposes of the OTA. As well as not re-offending, the defendant had also taken measures to address the harm caused by his offending; further he would be at least 70 by the time his trial began. The Court exercised its discretion to dismiss all the charges. Judgment Date: 7 May 2021