Arrest of a child — lawfulness of arrest — aggravated robbery — kidnapping — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 4A, 5, 208, 214, 238 & 245 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 37 & 40 — Crimes Act 1961, ss 209 & 235 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 146 & 147 — Police v SM [2015] NZYC 666 — Police v MR (No 1) [2022] NZYC 54 — X v District Court at Auckland [2020] NZHC 2952 — Police v JH [2020] NZYC 396 — Pomare v Police HC Whangarei AP8/02, 12 March 2002 — Police v H YC Kaitaia CRN-5229003685, 20 January 2006 — Police v CG YC Upper Hutt CRI-2012-278-2, 9 July 2012 — Police v CV [2021] NZYC 26 — Police v HG [2004] DCR 685 — ITW v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2003-409-35, 11 September 2003 — R v Fawcett [2021] NZHC 2969 — Police v DS [2016] NZYC 444 — Police v IB [2018] DCR 574 — Police v MR (No 2) [2022] NZYC 109 — Thompson v R [2016] NZHC 2753. The young person faced two charges of aggravated robbery and one charge of kidnapping. The alleged offending took place in a park at night with the young person's friend. Police alleged that the friend had raped one of the victims, but the young person was not charged with the sexual offending. The issue in this proceeding was whether the arrest of the young person was lawful. As he was under 18 at the time of the arrest, the young person was considered a child under the Oranga Tamariki Act. This meant that s 214 applied. Section 214 requires police to reasonably believe an arrest without a warrant is necessary to ensure their attendance at a court appearance, to prevent further offending, or to prevent loss or destruction of evidence. It was argued that the arresting officer was not aware of the young person's circumstances and was therefore unable to reasonably justify the arrest under s 214. The prosecution argued that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to suspect that the young person had committed aggravated robbery and/or rape and therefore the arrest was in the public interest. The Court found that the young person had no history of offending and there was no risk of loss of evidence, so the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest. The Court reasoned that the breach was serious but not done in bad faith. Where a charge is deemed to be a nullity, there is no jurisdiction for a court to dismiss a charge. The Court therefore invited the prosecution to withdraw the charges. In the event that the police chose to lay new charges, arguments around abuse of process or delay could be made at that stage. Judgment date: 24 July 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **