Compulsory care order — mental impairment — offending while on bail — risk of reoffending — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 101 & 135 — Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, ss 10, 23, 24 & 25 — Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, s 140 & pt 3. The young person faced 12 charges, including unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, theft, dishonesty, assault on police, resisting police and possession of an offensive weapon. In a hearing on those charges he had been deemed unfit to stand trial. Several months later, he was charged with four further offences, being aggravated assault, possession of instruments for conversion, possession of an offensive weapon under the Crimes Act, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. While on bail for the second set of charges, he committed further offences, being assaulting a police officer, intentional damage of a police vehicle and possession of instruments for conversion. The issue for determination was whether an order for compulsory care should be made in favour of the young person under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act (ID(CCR) Act). To make an order that a young person is to be a secure care recipient under the ID(CCR) Act), a court must be satisfied that s 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act is met, namely that: the young person suffers from an intellectual disability; they have been assessed by a specialist; and they will receive care under a programme, and that programme is available. A clinical psychologist recommended that the young person be made a secure care recipient for a period of two years. The reasons included that the young person had been deemed unfit to stand trial because of an intellectual disability; he had been exposed to a lifetime of drug use, gangs, violence, and crime so that it had become a part of his life; he was a very high risk of reoffending; and he needed to gain life skills and establish opportunities without the risk of reoffending. As a care recipient the young person would be required to reside in a facility that would provide rehabilitation and would then be reintegrated into the community with support services in place. The Judge was satisfied that the criteria was met and that the order was the only appropriate option for the young person. The Judge made a s 25 order accordingly, which superseded the existing Oranga Tamariki Act custody order. Judgment Date: 7 October 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *