Person’s Care on Conviction — statutory interpretation — Court jurisdiction — Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 34 — Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, ss 3, 11, 85, 87 — Interpretation Act 1999, s 5(1) — Family Courts Rules 2002, r 204. Following interpretation of the ID(CCR) Act and the Rules, the Judge found that the Court had no jurisdiction to defer the expiry of an order for Person’s Care on Conviction. The order for Person’s Care on Conviction had been made under s 34 of the CP(MIP) Act, and was set to expire on 29 January. A compulsory care coordinator applied on 21 January for a s 85 extension of that order, and a s 87 order to defer the order’s expiry. The applications were not considered by a Judge until 1 February, at which time the order had expired. The issue was whether s 87 should be interpreted to allow the Court to defer expiry where a s 85 application was pending at the time of expiry. That was found not to be the correct interpretation. The “slip rule” contained in the Family Courts Rules was also considered. That rule provides for the correction of clerical mistakes and slips. The Judge expressed that “[t]here is no suggestion that the Judge made an accidental slip or omission, or that the order contains a clerical mistake or error; the problem is more fundamental than that.” As a result, the Court had no jurisdiction to defer expiry of the order. **Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements.