Sentencing — transfer to District Court — dishonestly gets into motor vehicles — assault with intent to rob — aggravated robbery — failure to stop — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 283 & 333 — Sentencing Act 2002, s 27. The young person, TG, appeared for re-disposition on two charges of dishonestly gets into motor vehicle, one of assault with intent to rob, one of aggravated robbery and one of failing to stop. Between 2014 and 2016 the young person committed 17 offences including burglary (x5), unlawfully gets into motor vehicle (x7) and escapes lawful custody (x2). In 2017, while the young person was subject to a supervision order for previous offending he and a friend stole a car and attempted to rob a store, armed with black replica pistols. The duo were chased off by an employee and failed to take anything from the store. They then drove to another store and successfully removed cash, cigarettes and food, after pointing the replica pistol at a lone employee and threatening him. Soon after leaving the second store, an unmarked police car tried to make the young people pull over. TG was driving and instead sped away. Eventually a tyre deflation device stopped their vehicle and they were arrested. The main issue was whether or not the young person should be transferred to the District Court for sentencing. Before this could happen, the Judge had to consider sentencing principles, including the need to impose the least restrictive sentence available in the circumstances. If transferred TG would likely face a sentence of imprisonment. Counsel submitted a prison sentence would be ineffective for the young person, particularly as he was around 17 years old, male and Maori. The Judge accepted statistics for re-offending, re-arrest, re-conviction, and re-imprisonment for this demographic are much higher than others. It was argued that transfer to the District Court on these charges would simply cycle the young person into the prison system. The Judge noted that the District Court can use s 27 of the Sentencing Act to call for a cultural speaker to address the Court on an offender’s personal, family, whanau, community and cultural background. This section was enacted due to Parliament’s concern about over-representation of Maori in prisons. Section 27 has been used more often in reports at sentencing hearings, and judges are now being asked to consider the cumulative and compounding effect of generations of post-colonial experience that have caused significant trauma and disruption of cultural identity for Maori. While s 27(1)(b) requires a causal link between the cultural background and the commission of the offence, the Court is more often considering the collective experience of Maori whanau, hapu, iwi, as well as the relationship between this experience and modern Maori poverty and high-risk lifestyles which include offending and re-offending. The Judge considered the District Court would adequately take cultural considerations into account. The young person was transferred to the District Court for sentencing. Reasons included the serious nature of the offending, the huge impact the offending had on the victims, a lack of remorse from the young person, a complete disregard for previous Youth Court orders and attempts at rehabilitation, the young person's healthy upbringing by two loving parents and a need to hold him accountable and teach him that actions have consequences. Judgment Date: 8 May 2018. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *