Oral judgment — fitness to stand trial — remand in custody — continued detention — “cross over kids” — arson — "secure facility" — Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, ss 8A, 9, 10, 13, 23, 24 & 25 — Crimes Act 1961, s 267(2)(a) — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4A, 238(1)(d) & 364 — Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 9 & 23 — Teika v District Court of New Zealand [2024] NZHC 1017 — NZ Police v MW [2023] NZHC 3669 — Judge A FitzGerald, The crossover between Youth Justice and Care and Protection (undated paper). The young person faced two sets of charges which were being dealt with under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. He was found unfit to plead on all of them. Up until that point he had been remanded in the custody of Oranga Tamariki pursuant to s 238(1)(d) of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The Court now had to decide on his remand status. One of the matters that the Court had to consider was a recent High Court ruling granting habeas corpus to an adult who had been remanded in custody after being found unfit to stand trial. Because the adult was no longer at risk of being found criminally liable, the High Court held that it was not appropriate that he be remanded to a prison. In the Youth Court, the Judge applied the reasoning of the High Court and held that a s 238(1)(d) remand was not available once a young person had been found unfit to plead. The only options in this instance were those under s 23(2) of the CP (MIP) Act: bail or remand to a hospital or secure facility. Since bail was not an option, the young person was remanded under s 23(2)(b) to a secure facility. 31 May 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **