CHILD OFFENDERS

Taranaki Daily News, 25 June 1931, Page 8

CHILD OFFENDERS

CASE OF MISTAKEN AGE. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RAISED. The case of a 15-year-old boy who was sentenced in the Supreme Court at Auckland a fortnight ago under the impression that he was IS years old, has 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. The boy had pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, and. was committed by justices of the peace at Whakatane 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, on Monday submitted to Mr. Justice Smith a motion for an order to quash the plea of guilty, the conviction, the committal for sentence and the sentence on the ground that the boy was a child within the meaning of the Child Welfare Act, 1625, as amended, and on the ground that the 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 the charge against him or to commit him. Mr. Noble said that throughout the proceedings the age of the prisoner was erroneously stated to be 18, and he was dealt with on that basis. That information was supplied by the prisoner. His Honour: Why did he state he was IS? Mr. Noble: Because he thought he was 18. His father died on the day the boy was born, March 13, 1916, and his mother died in 1922, and there was no one with whom the police could communicate. His aunt now living in Auckland later made known the true position. 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 here 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. Mr. Meredith, for the Crown, said lie found himself in some difficulty because, after careful consideration, he agreed with the contention of Mr. Noble. Under section 29 of the Child Welfare Act jin-is-diction was given, to specially authorised justices and magistrates, and except.in cases specially set 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 be 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. 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 Full Court. He thought that more particularly as counsel for the Crown agreed in his submission with counsel for the piisonei. His Honour said he was not satisfied 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 Welfaic Act of 1925. On the other hand, lie had not been able to give sufficient consideration to the case to determine Ins own view, and in all the circumstances he thought he should not as a single Judge determine the question. His Honour proposed, therefore, to send this motion on to the Full 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 date. In the meantime, if prisoner desired bail application for habeas corpus must be made, for after sentence he had no jurisdiction to admit to bail otherwise. He remitted the motion to be argued before the Full Court in Wellington.