Delay application — undue delay — COVID-19 shutdown — prejudice to young person — assault in a family relationship — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 4A, 5, 208, 249 & 322 — Attorney-General v Youth Court at Manukau [2007] NZFLR 103 — R v ES [2020] NZYC 434 — BGTD v Youth Court Rotorua 15/3/00, High Court Rotorua 119/999. The young person faced a charge of assault in a family relationship. He denied the charge and made an application for the charge to be dismissed for undue delay. He argued that there had been undue delays between both the time of the alleged offending and the holding of a Family Group Conference, and between the alleged offending and the court hearing. The hearing had been delayed several times: first because the officer in charge was unavailable, then because both the young person and the complainant were absent, and then because of the COVID-19 shutdown. The total delay had been more than 11 months, and the young person argued that it was likely to hamper his recollection of events and that 11 months was a long time given his young age and the young age of the complainant. Even if the charge was ultimately found to be proven, the delay meant that there was a decreasing chance of meaningful accountability. The police opposed the application and argued that there had been no protracted delay between the alleged offending and the hearing. The time frame included the Christmas-New Year period, and at times there had been trouble locating both the young person and the complainant. The delay had caused no prejudice to the young person, and accountability was important because the offending alleged was serious and had had a severe impact on the victim. The Court observed that the young person had not offended since the alleged offending, and agreed with the young person's submission that the longer the delay continued, the less meaningful rehabilitation would be. The police could have decided to charge the young person sooner than they did, and should have organised their prosecution more efficiently. The Court found that the delay had been unduly protracted and exercised its discretion to dismiss the charge. Judgment Date: 8 November 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *