Pretrial matter — application for young persons to be tried together with adults — co-defendants — aggravated robbery — joinder — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 133 & 138 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 2, 4A, 5, 208, 277, 321 & Sch 1 — TM and DR v Police [2014] NZYC 306 — R v Johnson [2018] NZCA 187 — R v [W] [2018] NZHC 1861. Two young persons faced a charge of aggravated robbery. They were alleged to have been part of a group that held up two complainants at knifepoint and robbed them of cannabis and other items. The Crown sought for the young persons to be tried together with a group of adults, who were alleged to have offended against the same complainants in a series of incidents including the one that gave rise to the charges against the young persons. The Crown also sought joinder of the charges against the young persons with the charges against the adult offenders. The Court noted that the procedure by which the Crown's application had been brought was not strictly correct. Under s 277(5) of the Oranga Tamariki Act (OTA) a young person who is jointly charged with an adult defendant who has elected a jury trial is to be tried in the same court along with the adult unless the Youth Court finds that it is in the interests of justice to try the young person in the Youth Court. The Crown's notice under s 138 of the Criminal Procedure Act served to jointly charge the young persons, with the necessary modification of the criteria under OTA, s 277. The Youth Court had jurisdiction to consider the interests of justice question, whether or not an application was made. This was supported by the primary consideration of the wellbeing and best interests of the young person under OTA, s 4A. In addressing the question of the interests of justice in trying the young persons in the Youth Court, the Court reasoned that most of the charges against the adult defendants came from two incidents that did not involve the young persons. This would mean that if charged together with the adults, the young persons would be mere spectators for most of the trial. If the young persons stood trial in the Youth Court it would be a relatively short trial. Therefore it would not be too onerous for the complainants to give evidence in that trial as well as in the trial against the adult defendants. Further, a Youth Court trial could be resolved much more quickly than a District Court trial involving multiple defendants. The Court found that it would be in the interests of justice for the young persons to be tried in the Youth Court separately from the adult defendants. Judgment date: 26 October 2022 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **