The New Zealand Criminal Justice Act contains two provisions, 39B and 47A, under which courts can request psychiatric evaluations to determine if a person awaiting trial is mentally disturbed or disordered. Such examinations are to be undertaken outside a psychiatric hospital whenever possible. This study examined the 103 occasions when the Dunedin District Court remanded an offender for a psychiatric assessment. It found that remand for psychiatric evaluation often was in custody rather than bail and that judges usually rubber-stamped the medical practitioner's certificate recommending custody in a psychiatric hospital. Serious offenses were 32 percent of the remand orders, moderate offenses 56.3 percent, and minor offenses 11.7 percent. The majority of the sample was male, Caucasian, and under 30 years old. Five psychiatrists wrote reports, although almost half were prepared by one psychiatrist. A common complaint of the psychiatrists was lack of documentation for cases remanded to a psychiatric institution. Of the reports, 10 percent contained no diagnosis, 24 were determined normal, and the remainder had problems ranging from drugs through personality disorders and psychotic illness. Only 6 percent of the reports made no recommendations regarding disposition. Over half the recommendations were for treatment and rehabilitation in the community. Noncustodial sentences were imposed on 81 percent of the people remanded to custody for evaluation. The paper provides tables, 23 footnotes, and 21 references.