Aggravated robbery — unlawful arrest — arrest without a warrant — public interest — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 5, 208, 214, 215A, 216, 220 & 245 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — R v DH [2018] NZFLR 248; [2017] NZHC 3223; BC201762873. The young person was arrested while on e-bail, on one charge of allegedly committing an aggravated robbery and another charge of failing without reasonable excuse to assist a constable executing a search warrant of a mobile phone when required. The Court considered the lawfulness of the arrest, which was done without a warrant. Section 214 of the Oranga Tamariki Act ("the Act") outlines the reasons why a young person may be arrested without warrant, which includes ensuring a young person's attendance at a court appearance; prevention of further commission of offences; and preventing loss or destruction of evidence, or interference with a witness. The Judge indicated that s 214 must be guided by the principles in ss 4 and 5 of the Act; that a young person must be encouraged and assisted to participate and express their views in any proceeding, and that the wellbeing of the child must be at the centre of decision-making that affects the child and their rights. The Judge also noted that s 208 must be read subject to the principles in ss 4 and 5. The Court's evaluation of the Youth Justice checklist found that there was no public interest in the arrest aside from the firearm still outstanding from the robbery, which officers had indicated that the young person was unlikely to interfere with. The Judge held that the charge of failing to assist in the execution of a search warrant was fundamentally against the young person's right to silence enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the tenor of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The arrest procedure was found to be unlawful, and the Court held that the young person should not have been punished for exercising his right to silence. Both charges were dismissed. Judgment date: 20 May 2022 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **