Reserved judgment — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — indecent assault — dismissal of charges — undue delay — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 5, 208, 247, 282 & 322 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147 — New Zealand Police v WR [2021] NZYC 11 — M (CA245/2015) v R [2015] NZCA 413 — R v DG [2021] NZHC 438 — Attorney-General v Youth Court at Manukau [2007] NZFLR 103 (HC) — R v M [2020] NZCA 539 — H v R [2019] NZSC 69. This was an application by the young person for the charges against him to be dismissed because of undue delay, pursuant to s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act. The young person faced four charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. While almost four years had passed between the date of the alleged offending and the trial, there had been seven months between the first s 322 application and the hearing. The test for undue delay is a two-part process: firstly, determining whether the time between the commission of the alleged offending and the hearing has been unnecessarily or unduly protracted; secondly, if there is a finding of undue delay it is at the court's discretion to dismiss the charges. The Crown submitted that an early trial date had been obtained and the delay was not unduly protracted. The Court considered that the delay was undue, as the period of time was significant when viewed from the young person's perspective, and promptness should be prioritised as provided by s 5 of the Act. The Court then looked to whether it should exercise the discretion to dismiss, using the purposes and principles in ss 4 and 5. Counsel for the defence submitted that the seriousness of allegations and public interest in pursuing proceedings were neutral factors, that the young person had suffered prejudice as a result of the delay, and that his age at the time of the alleged offending favoured dismissal. Having regard to these submissions, the Judge considered that the assessment of the seriousness of the allegations must be done at face value and concluded that they were serious regardless of a potential discharge of conviction. The Judge also held that it is in the public interest that serious sexual offending be the subject of a trial, despite the young person's age at the time. This was particularly so because dismissal on this ground would require complainants to report incidents as soon as they occurred. The arguments around the prejudice and age of the young person were dismissed, as the Court saw no evidence of ongoing effects or particular rehabilitative efforts. The Judge found that the public interest, the interests of the victim and the principle of accountability weighed against dismissing the charges. The s 322 application was dismissed. Judgment date: 6 May 2021.* * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. ***