Application to dismiss charges — undue delay — unnecessary or undue protraction — burglary — unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle — unlawfully entering a building — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 5 & 322 — Martin v District Court at Tauranga [1995] 3NZLR 419 — Police v Turner HC Palmerston North, CRI-2005-454-62, 3 May 2006 — P v Turner HC Palmerston North, CRI-2005-454-62, 3 May 2006. The young person faced three charges of burglary, one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and one charge of unlawfully entering a building. Counsel for the young person brought an application to dismiss the charges on the basis of undue delay. The alleged offending was in January 2021 and the first court appearance did not occur until October 2021. Over this period, a discrete delay between June and July resulted from a filing error at the hands of Police. Section 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act creates a discretion for the Court to dismiss charges if it can be proven there has been unnecessarily or unduly protracted delay. The basis of this section is that delay negatively impacts young people as their sense of time is different to that of adults. In deciding whether delay was undue, the Court must consider the length of the delay, waiver of time periods, reasons for the delay and prejudice to the young person. The young person had been interviewed two months after the offending and made admissions in relation to that offending. The Court applied the factors outlined in "Attorney-General v Youth Court at Manukau", and held that the six-week period of inaction on the file was not unnecessarily or unduly protracted. The Judge declined the application to dismiss the charges. Judgment date: 17 November 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **