1. R v DP & RP High Court, Auckland Charge: Murder
Trial: 2 June 2015 – 23 June 2015
Verdict: DP – Guilty of Manslaughter
RP – Not guilty of both murder and manslaughter

2. DP 13 years of age at the date of the alleged offending.
Grew up in a family with a long history of care and protection concerns.
Began using drugs at 9 years of age and was addicted to synthetic cannabis by the time of the alleged offending.
Suffered a traumatic brain injury at 8 years of age when he was struck by a car on a pedestrian crossing.
He did not receive appropriate rehabilitative care following the accident.
DP still suffers from major cognitive deficits that left him with an inability to concentrate over extended periods.
He has also demonstrated behavioural and learning issues at school, and had attempted suicide on at least one occasion.
At the time of the offending he was ostensibly in the care of his mother, who attempted to deal with his addiction to synthetic cannabis by providing him with actual cannabis.
The house in which he was living was effectively a “doss house” that was frequented by numerous drug users.
The psychologist who provided an assessment prior to trial considered he would be able to concentrate for periods up to 30 minutes, but would then become cognitively fatigued and would require rest.

3. RP 12 years of age at the date of the alleged offending.
Exposed to drug and alcohol in utero.
Grew up in an extremely violent home environment.
Exposed to drugs and alcohol at a very early age and developed a significant substance abuse disorder.
Ostensibly living with his grandmother at the time of the alleged offending but she had lost contact with him.
On the night before the offending RP stayed at DP’s address, where he consumed a considerable quantity of synthetic cannabis.
Suffered from borderline intellectual functioning with overall cognitive ability falling within the borderline range.
Presented with extreme difficulty in following spoken language when required to process more than two or three sentences at a time.
Demonstrated inability to draw inferences from spoken language and to recognise he may have misunderstood what was said.
Would reply to questions within “stock” responses and on some occasions would only respond to part of a question.
Would often attempt to answer a question before it had been fully asked.
His understanding of vocabulary was restricted to concrete, simple vocabulary related to his direct experiences and had little or not ability to comprehend abstract concepts.

4. R is likely to pay attention and understand spoken language most easily when:
His attention is gained before talking to him – ask him to look at the speaker, and prompt him to focus and listen.
He is relaxed.
He is told what the topic is before being presented with specific information.
Information is presented one simple sentence at a time.
He has “visual communication supports” to assist his understanding e.g. time lines, key words written down or pictures drawn to depict the information being discussed.
His levels of concentration, participation and anxiety are monitored for signs of fatigue, anxiety, poor attention, listening and comprehension. Behaviour that may signal problems in these areas include: fidgeting, restlessness, yawning, facial and bodily tension, swearing under his breath.
He is provided with visual tools and encouraged to use them to signal any difficulties with attention, understanding and anxiety.
He has frequent short breaks.
Vocabulary is restricted to simple short words that are concrete (not abstract). Legal and other jargon should be avoided.
Metaphor, idioms and colloquialisms should be avoided.
Information is presented at a slow rate with pausing between sentences and he has time to process what is said or ask for explanation.
Adults check that he has fully understood what he has heard.

5. Checking understanding:
It is important to check his understanding of what he has heard. He is likely to say ‘yes’ if asked if he has understood (even if he has not).
Check understanding by asking R to say what he has understood in his own words.
Check understanding of key vocabulary by asking ‘what does X mean?’

6. APPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
Dated 16 April 2015
TAKE NOTICE that on the …… day of ………………..2015, at am/pm, or as soon thereafter as counsel (or parties) may be heard the Applicants will move this Honourable Court
FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS THAT:
(a) Communication assistance be provided to the Defendants at trial;
Communication assistance be in the form of a qualified Speech and Language Therapist;
The Speech and Language Therapist be engaged by the Court to:
Consult with the mental health experts engaged on behalf of the Defendant;
Undertake an assessment and prepare a report for the Court (and Counsel) on:
The communication needs of each Defendant;
The way in which the court processes and language might be modified for the benefit of each Defendant;
The appropriate language by which each Defendant might be questioned during the trial;
Be present in the trial to provide communication assistance to both of the Defendants; and
Any other just order

7. THIS APPLICATION is made in reliance on: The Evidence Act 2006, s 80.
UPON THE GROUNDS that:
It is proper that the order be made as both defendants are young people;
Communications assistance is necessary for the Defendants to enable the Defendants to understand the trial (s 80(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006);
Communication assistance is necessary for the Defendants to give evidence if one or both of the Defendants elects to do so (s 80(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006);
Communication assistance is necessary to ensure the Defendants can understand the language used in court (s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990));
Communications assistance is best practice in the United Kingdom (see extract from the Advocate’s Gateway, at Tab A);
Communications assistance has been highlighted as an important issue for young defendants in the Youth Court (see extract from Court in the Act, at Tab B).
THIS APPLICATION is made in reliance on:
The Evidence Act 2006, s 80.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, s 24(g).