Sentencing — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 15B & 18 — judicial monitoring — vulnerable young person — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 386A. The defendant, recently 18, had progressed through the Youth Court to now being under the jurisdiction of the District Court. As his offending had occurred when he was 17, a sentence of imprisonment was not an available outcome. The Judge felt the only option was to impose intensive supervision. The defendant had previously struggled with community sentences. The defendant faced numerous difficulties including drug and alcohol issues (he had started smoking cannabis at age six), ADHD, dyslexia, and low cognitive functioning. He did not fall into the criteria of having an intellectual disability but had been unable to cope with mainstream education or any form of paid work. The Judge read a report prepared by a doctor which listed the help the defendant would need. It was unclear whether any support service existed that would be able to cater to the defendant's needs. The defendant was also involved in the Family Court and so a special condition was attached to his supervision order that he must comply with any counselling or programme as per his Family Court support order plan. Judgment Date: 16 October 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *