Sentencing — wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm — stabbing — female offender — kōhine — rights of child — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 7AA, 208, 284, 314 & sch 1A — Corrections Act 2004, s 34 — Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts 3, 37 & 40 — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, arts 2 & 7 — Beijing Rules —Havana Rules — Riyadh Guidelines — New Zealand Police v JH [2020] NZYC 396. One charge against the young person of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm had been proven and the young person appeared for sentence. The prosecution sought to have the young person transferred to the District Court for sentencing given the seriousness of the offending. The young person had stabbed the victim several times in the head and the impact on the victim was significant; however, the victim also voiced her concern for the young person and wished her well for the future. Amendments to the Oranga Tamariki Act ("the Act") in 2019 require a more comprehensive approach to youth sentencing than previously, giving practical effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, and upholding the rights contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ("UNCROC") and other relevant international instruments. The most relevant principle of the Treaty in this context was that of active protection by recognising that the young person is a taonga and in doing so recognise that her place in the world is with her whānau, hapū and iwi, who must be included in decision-making regarding her well-being and best interests; and the implementation of how that is achieved. The Beijing Rules recognised that juvenile females in the justice system were sometimes overlooked as they represented only a small proportion of offenders. In considering whether to transfer the young person to the District Court, the Judge requested correspondence from Corrections. The correspondence noted that the women's correctional facilities did not provide a dedicated unit to females under the age of 18 years, but that every effort was made to separate those under 18 years old from adult women. There were also no tailored rehabilitation programmes for younger females. If sentenced in the District Court, the young person would have to be transferred from the youth justice facility where she currently resided to another facility to serve her sentence, whereas if she stayed in the jurisdiction of the Youth Court, she could stay where she had been. Reports from the youth justice residence were positive, and, given the young person's history of methamphetamine use, it was imperative to ensure a full recovery from use. A transfer to a dedicated drug treatment programme following her release from residence was an option. The four key considerations were the welfare and best interests of the young person, public safety, interests of the victim, and accountability. The Judge concluded that these considerations would be met by keeping the young person in the Youth Court's jurisdiction. She was sentenced to six months' supervision with residence, with a followup conference scheduled to consider early release. Judgment Date: 7 December 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *