Sentencing — sexual connection with a child — sexual connection with a young person — application for discharge — admonishment — Crimes Act 1961, ss 132 & 134 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 4A, 5, 208, 282 & 283 — R v SQ [2019] NZYC 627 — R v ND [2018] NZYC 602 — Police v JT [2017] NZYC 462 — Police v TDM YC Nelson CRI-2011-242-000016, 24 May 2012. The young person appeared for disposition, having not denied the four charges against him: two charges of sexual connection with a child, carrying a maximum term of 14 years' imprisonment, and two of sexual connection with a young person, with a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment. The young person had offended against his younger relative, with whom he had lived, over a period of 3 years. He had sexual intercourse with her while her mother was at work and ejaculated into her. The young person also had the victim perform oral sex on him in exchange for cash and cigarettes. The offending only came to light when she sought medical help as she was scared she might be pregnant. The young person was stoned on several occasions when the offending took place. After the offending, the young person had participated in a family group conference which set out a plan. The young person had undergone counselling, had completed Level 2 NCEA, and was applying for higher education. The young person had prior proven charges in the Youth Court of aggravated robbery and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle. Based on Oranga Tamariki's recommendation that the young person be discharged under s 282 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 ("the Act"), counsel for the young person applied for a discharge. This was opposed by the Crown, which submitted that the seriousness of the offending did not warrant a discharge and instead an admonishment under s 283 of the Act was appropriate. The Crown cited comparable cases in which discharges had not been granted and one case where a discharge had been granted but the Judge in that case had noted her unease given the seriousness of the offending. The Judge considered the aggravating features of the offending in this case: the breach of trust as the victim was a younger relative of the young person; the fact that the offending occurred over a three year period and the nature of the offending; and the young age of the victim. The Judge noted that the victim, who had not provided a victim impact statement, would likely face lifelong effects of the offending. Despite the young person having made efforts to improve his behaviour, the Judge considered that given the seriousness of the offending, a discharge under s 282 was not appropriate. The Judge instead made an order for admonishment under s 283(b) in respect of all the charges. Judgment Date: 9 July 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *