CHILD OFFENDERS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 151, 29 June 1931, Page 11

CHILD OFFENDERS

CASE OF MISTAKEN AGE

PROBLEM FOR FULL COURT

The case of a 15-year-old boy wlio was sentenced in the Auckland Supreme Court a fortnight ago under the impression that he was IS years old, lias been found to raise questions of such importance that Mr. Justice Smith on Monday decided to send it to the Full Court in Wellington for consideration (states the "New Zealand Herald"). The boy had pleaded guilty to .a charge of burglary, and was committed by Justices of the Peace at Whakatarie for sentence in the Supreme Court.' Mr. Justice Smith sentenced him to. two'years' detention in a Borstal Institution. The boy's counsel, Mr,' Noble, yestorilay submitted to Mr. Justice Smith a motion for an order to quash the plea of guilty, the conviction, tko committal for sentence, and the sentence, on the ground that the by" was a child within the meaning of the Child., Welfare Act, 1925, as amended, and on the ground that thg Justices of the Peace who dealt: - with ■ him .', .. at. Whakatane had not been specially appointed with power to hold a"Children's Court. They had, therefore, no power to hear tho charge against him or to commit him. BOY'S PARENTS DEAD. , Mr. Noblo said that throughout the proceedings the age of the prisoner was erroneously stated to be IS, and he was dealt with on that basis. That information was supplied by the prisoner. His Honour: "Why did he state ho was 18?" Mr. Noble: "Because lie thought he was 18. His father died on the day the boy was born, 13th March, 1916, and his mother died in 1922, and there was no one with whom tho police could communicate. His a.unt.now living in Auckland later made tho true position known." Counsel examined the provisions of the Child Welfare Act with a view to showing that the intention of the Legislature was to give the Children's Court exclusive jurisdiction over all offences committed by children.. The. .only exception was in an area-where Children's Courts had not been established.: Counsel said the proceedings at Whakatane were illegal, and irregular, and the prisoner was not properly or legally before the Supreme Court. His Honour said Mr. Noble's argument involved this, that it was a condition precedent to Justices of the Peace dealing with a young person that there should be some judicial determination of the age of the young person. .GROWN SOLICITOR AGREES. Mr. Meredith, for the Crown, said! he found himself in some difficulty because, after careful consideration, he agreed with the contention of Mr. Noble. Un-. dor section 29 of the Jhild Welfare Act jurisdiction was given to specially authorised Justices and Magistrates, and. except in cases specially sot out no Magistrate or Justice other than those specially appointed had jurisdiction to deal with a child. Clearly the intention of the Legislature was definite that no children should be dealt with at ordinary centres except at a specially constituted' Court, said Mr., Meredith, He held that the clause.providing that no failure on the part of Justices should invalidate the proceedings only provided for the protection of properly conducted proceedings. That interpretation was going to cause serious inconvenience, as Justices in country districts would bo faced with a conundrum every time a well-grown boy came into Court, to find out. .whether, he was over or under 17. This boy seemed to be a derelict with; no one looking after him, and it was' quite likely- that he did not know his own age. His Honour said he had given the matter some consideration, i It was quite clear that the- question raised was of great importance to the administration of: justice as. it affected children, .and.he thought it should be determined by the Pull Court. Ho thought that more, particularly as counsel for the - Crown agreed in Ms submission with counsel-for the ..prisoner. QUESTION OF BAIL. His Honour said he was not satisfled that sub-section 4 of section. 29 could not'be construed to cover such a case as the. present, where there had been an entirely innocent failure to comply with the provisions of part 4 of the Child Welfare Act of 1925. Oa the other l;and, he had not been able to give sufficient consideration to the case to determine his own view, and in all the circumstances he thought he should not as a single Judge detormine the question. He would therefore send this motion on to the Pull Court in Wellington. The Court of Appeal commenced its sittings there that day, and no doubt application could be made for a hearing at an early dateIn the meantime, if the prisoner dosired; bail, application for habeas corpus must be made, for after- sentence he had no jurisdiction to admit to bail otherwise. ' . ■