commends the government for addressing the long-standing inconsistency. However, the minimum age of criminal responsibility (as regards culpability for a criminal offence) under the Crimes Act 1961 remains well below the minimum age of 14 set by the Committee’s General Comment No 24.135 108. The Crimes Act sets the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years, although there is an additional onus on the prosecution to prove the capacity of any child aged between 10-13 and accused of a criminal offence.136 109. Criminal proceedings generally cannot be commenced against a child under 14.137 However, children aged 10-13 can face murder or manslaughter charges (which are dealt with in the High Court). And criminal proceedings can be initiated in the Youth Court regarding other very serious offending by a child aged 12 or 13.138 Additionally, the Youth Court has authority to transfer a child who is found guilty of committing a serious offence to the District Court for sentencing, although instances of this occurring are relatively rare.139 110. In the Commission’s view, New Zealand’s low age of criminal responsibility under the Crimes Act sits uneasily against the principles of the youth justice system, which under the Oranga Tamariki Act is required to be administered in a manner that upholds the Convention. The Commission understands that the government is considering the issue. However, we are unaware of any proposed measures to address it. 111. While youth offending rates have declined significantly since 2010, and continue to decline, structural discrimination remains evident. Māori constitute nearly two-thirds of all children under the age of 16 who are charged with an offence. The Youth Court appearance rate for Māori is over nine times that for non-Māori.140 In response, the marae-based Rangatahi Court, which constitutes part of the Youth Court system, provides an alternative pathway for Māori and has had some success in reducing reoffending rates. However, there is an urgent need for other diversionary responses that recognise and address the current inequalities experienced by Māori children. 112. Young people with neuro-disabilities are also over-represented in the youth justice system. While specific prevalence data is not collected in New Zealand, it is estimated that, based on overseas data, over 60% of young people in the justice system likely have a neuro-disability. However, judiciary and academics have observed that the implications for the youth justice system are only recently beginning to be understood. FASD has been a factor in high-profile youth offending cases, but it has been noted that only about one in 300 youth offenders each year that were likely to have FASD would have been diagnosed with it.141 135 CRC/C/GC/24, para 33. We note the Committee has also commended States parties with minimum ages of 15 or 16. 136 Crimes Act 1961, section 22(1) 137 In youth justice and child protection proceedings, a person aged under 14 is defined as a “child’’ and a person aged 14-17 is defined as a “young person”, section 2, Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 138 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, section 272(1) 139 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, section 283(o) 140 Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit, Tangata Whenua, Tangata Tiriti, Huia Tangata Kotahi – State of the Nation Report 2020, p 11 https://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/sites/default/files/files/%5Bfile_field%3Atype%5D/tsa_sotn_2020_0.pdf 141 Neurodisability in the Youth Justice System in New Zealand: How Vulnerability Intersects with Justice, Report prepared by Dr Nessa Lynch, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, in conjunction with Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand (DFNZ), summarising the contributions of participants at the 2016 Neurodisabilities Forum, hosted by DFNZ in Wellington, 12 May 2016.30 May 2016, p 7-8, http://neurodisabilitiesforum.org.nz/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Neurodisabilities-Forum-2016-Report-1.pdf 26