Sentencing — application for discharge — sexual offending — sexual violation by rape — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — indecent act — incest — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 5, 208, 247, 282, 283, 284 & 289 — United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, art 40(3) — MW v Police [2017] NZHC 3084 — Powhare v R [2010] NZCA 268, (2010) 24 CRNZ 868 — Police v JT [2017] NZYC 462 — R v ND [2018] NZYC 602 — Police v OV [2018] NZYC 490 — R v SQ [2019] NZYC 627 — R v NB [2019] NZYC 225 — Police v SA [2020] NZYC 675. The young person faced one charge of sexual violation by rape, three of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of doing an indecent act, all of which he admitted. He offended against his younger sister on several occasions over a three-year period. The young person had attended a family group conference and had completed a Safe programme. Counsel for the young person sought a discharge pursuant to s 282 of the Oranga Tamariki Act ("OTA"). In considering an application for discharge a court should assess the restrictiveness of the outcome, and only impose it if a lesser outcome is clearly inadequate; and consider the youth justice principles in OTA, ss 208 and 284, including the wellbeing and best interests of the young person, the public interest, interests of the victim and accountability. The offending was serious because it occurred on multiple occasions, the victim was young and vulnerable, and the impact on the victim was significant and would be ongoing. The young person and victim's parents' response to the revelation of the offending had added to the victim's trauma, but this was not to be counted against the young person. The young person had accepted responsibility for the offending. The victim's safety was being guarded by her family, who did acknowledge the offending, and by being subject to custodial obligations of Oranga Tamariki and the supervision of the Family Court. The young person had been held accountable for his offending by reason of having to change schools and move out of home. The Judge noted that a mark on the young person's record would not be in his wellbeing and best interest. He was not at a high risk of reoffending and so the public interest consideration was diminished. He had plans for the future and a mark on his record could compromise them. Overall, the balance fell in favour of discharging the young person. The Judge granted a discharge on all five charges. Judgment date: 4 March 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * **