Oral judgment — care and rehabilitation plan — supervision order — "conviction" — "guilty" — Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, ss 26, 34, 35 & 39 — Police v the Young Person YC Napier CRI-2018-241-000023, 13 June 2019. The young person faced 27 serious charges. He had spent the last six months living in the secure unit of a youth justice facility, and had received little therapeutic or other assistance in that time. The Court had three options to address the young person's offending: to make him a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act (the Act); to make a supervision order placing him in the care of his parents; or to make a supervision order placing him in the care of his grandfather. The young person had spent much of his life in the care of his grandfather, after Oranga Tamariki raised various concerns about his parents. He had had a disrupted educational history and had been diagnosed with several disorders. The Court was satisfied that it would not be in the young person's best interests to be placed in the care of his parents. Oranga Tamariki provided a supervision order plan, but the Court considered it too similar to previous plans that had not worked for the young person. The Court found that the Youth Court had jurisdiction under subpart 4 of the Act despite the references to ‘conviction’, as the charges against the young person had been proven. Also, there was no need to order a new report seeking a diagnosis that the young person was intellectually disabled as the 2015 diagnosis remained valid. The Court made an order that the young person be made a care recipient under the Act, and stipulated that he be allowed to maintain relationships with his whānau. Judgment date: 19 July 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **