Application to dismiss charges — aggravated robbery — burglary — undue delay — unnecessary or undue protraction — welfare and interests of young person — public interest — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 5(f), 6, 208, 247(b), 322 & 333 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 25(b) — Attorney-General v Youth Court at Manukau [2007] NZFLR 103 — Martin v Tauranga District Court [1995] 2 NZLR 419 — Police v T [2006] DCR 599. The young person, FG, faced three charges of aggravated robbery and one of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. Counsel for the young person brought a second application to dismiss the charge on the basis of undue delay. The alleged offending occurred in September 2017 and early 2018 but was not further investigated until September and October 2018 and charges were not laid until November 2018. Section 322 of the Act creates a discretion for the Court to dismiss charges, if it can be proven there has been unnecessarily or unduly protracted delay. The basis of this section is that delay negatively impacts young people as their sense of time is different to that of adults. Young people also suffer memory loss and deterioration at a faster rate. In deciding whether delay was undue, the Court must consider the length of the delay, waiver of time periods, reasons for the delay and prejudice to the young person. The Court applied the factors outlined in "Attorney-General v Youth Court at Manukau", and held that there had been no undue delay. The time between the young person's admission to one of the incidents and the availability of forensic evidence linking him to the other incidents was minimal, and there had been other reasons for the delay such as illness. There was minimal prejudice to the young person who, at 15 years of age, still had significant time left under the Youth Court jurisdiction for disposition orders to be made and rehabilitation to occur. Given the seriousness of the alleged offending, it was not appropriate to dismiss the charges. The Judge declined the application to dismiss the charges. Judgment Date: 20 January 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *