Sentencing — aggravated robbery — assault with intent to rob — common assault — assaulting a police officer — aggravated assault — demanding with menaces — unlawful possession of a firearm — unlawfully getting into car — unlawful use of a car — causing intentional damage — escaping from custody — learning disability — ADHD — intellectual disability — rights of disabled persons — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 5, 208, 246, 282, 283(a), 284, 311 & 333 — Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, ss 4, 4A, 7, 8A & 38 — Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, s 7 — UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts 2, 3, 23, 37 & 40 — UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, arts 1, 5, 7, 13, 14 & 26. The young person appeared for sentence on 23 charges, including eight of aggravated robbery and three of assault with intent to rob. The charges covered a period of more than two years, during which time the young person had spent about seven and a half months in custody and another 17 months on restrictive bail conditions. The young person claimed that he had offended because of peer pressure. The Court outlined the young person's upbringing, which had been unsettled and marked by frequent changes of address and deaths of close family members. The young person's record at school had also indicated his behavioural problems and limited cognitive capacity. Following his problems at home and school, the young person had begun to associate with anti-social peers and soon became known to the police. During the more than two years that he had spent before the Court, the young person had been referred to a Family Group Conference and began to change his lifestyle and improve his compliance with the law. However he later experienced more personal upheavals and resumed offending. The young person had been assessed for fitness to stand trial, and had been shown to have several developmental disorders and disabilities. The Court found the young person fit to plead and to stand trial, and the young person opted to not deny the charges. The Court considered that the young person's rights under international law had been breached during his interactions with the justice system. He suffered from disabilities, but the appropriate supports and services had not been available to him; for instance he had been wrongly placed in a regular juvenile detention facility. The Court speculated that the lack of proper support and services may have been because of a poor understanding in society, reflected in shortcomings in the justice system, of what constitutes a disability. The young person had recently moved into a more satisfactory living situation and was making steps to improve his relationships with his family. In the circumstances the Court found it appropriate to make s 282 orders (deeming the charges to have never been laid) relating to four charges, made reparations orders to three charges, and made s 283(a) orders on the rest of the charges, discharging them without further order or penalty. Judgment date: 16 August 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **