Judge Davis agreed the delay was too long but only in respect of 10 charges laid last November and in January this year.
Other charges would remain - two aggravated robberies of Auckland stores, two burglaries, three further vehicle offences, reckless driving, and escaping custody.
The teen, who cannot be named, will be dealt with on those remaining matters and for two more recent vehicle offences, by Northland's Rangatahi Court later this year.
Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand Te Tai Tokerau / Northern Region was asked for comment on the court criticism but was unable to respond within the timeframe given to meet Open Justice's deadline.
In his decision, released to Open Justice, Judge Davis criticised Te Roopu Kimiora - the community mental health arm of Northland's former district health board – and its allocated report writer - for the length of time taken to produce the report.
The service is the region's only provider of the specialist reports directed by the court under Section 333 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
The report was ordered on October 26, last year, but was not received in its final form until June 7, this year.
Sayes and Donald had contended that without the report, the underlying reasons for the teen's offending could not be identified and no plan could be formulated to address them.
The delay also affected the teen's family and put the public at risk of further offending by the teen.
During the wait for the report, the teen absconded from electronically-monitored bail twice and then absconded twice more from non-secure Oranga Tamariki facilities.
He re-offended during those times, the lawyers said.
The delay also breached principles of the OT Act, which required these things to be done "promptly and in a timeframe appropriate to the age and development of the child or young person".
Judge Davis agreed. He said Te Roopu Kimiora failed in its obligation to carry out its function in a manner consistent with the principles and purposes of the OT Act, including the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that were inherent within it.
It was "difficult to see" how the service and the report writer could be seen to have acted in a manner that promoted the wellbeing of the young person, long-term outcomes for him, or assisted the whānau to meet his needs, Davis said.
On the other hand, many of the charges the teen faced were serious and included allegations of violence particularly in the context of aggravated robberies, Davis said.
"There are the needs of the victims of each offence to consider along with the public interest and desirability of holding a young person to account for their offending," he said.
There was a public interest in a rehabilitative regime being put in place for acknowledged offending.
That regime should as far as possible, address any needs or deficits that emerge from the Section 333 Report.
Any delay in receiving that report, affected the court's options in how it disposed of the case – particularly when a young person had spent a significant time in custody, the judge said.
Sayes told Open Justice the judgements issued in this teen's case were a timely reminder for everyone involved in the youth justice process to make sure they were observing the purposes and principles of the OT Act.
"If you don't observe [the principles of the Act] you run the risk of exactly what happened here – applications for dismissal of charges due to unlawful arrests and delays," Sayes said.
Everyone involved in youth justice had to "up their game".
"And, those who enforce the law, need to comply with it," Sayes said.
The teen was currently doing well on a supported electronically-monitored bail programme, Sayes said.
The Crown opposed the dismissal application, conceding there were delays but not that they were unduly protracted.
It said all were directly attributable to the teen absconding from either electronically-monitored bail or due to Covid-19 issues suffered by the report writer or at youth detention facilities where the youth had at times been housed.
