CHILD OFFENDERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 148, 25 June 1931, Page 5

CHILD OFFENDERS

CASE OF MISTAKEN AGE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RAISED PROBLEM FOR FULL COURT AUCKLAND, June 23. The case of the 15-y ear-old boy who was sentenced in the Supreme Court a fortnight ago under the impression that he was 18 years old, has been found to raise questions of such importance that Mr Justice Smith yesterday decided tu 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. Air Justice Smith sentenced him to two years’ detention in a Borstal Institution.

The boy’s counsel, Air Noble, yesterday 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. 1925, as amended, and on the ground that tho justices of the peace w’ho 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. Boy’s Parents Dead. 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 181

Air Noble: Because ho 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 of fences 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 Air 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. Crown Solicitor Agrees. Air Meredith, for the Crown, said he found himself in some difficulty because, after careful consideration, he agreed with tho contention of Air Noble. Under section 29 of the Child Welfare Act jurisdiction 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 prisoner. Question of Bail. His Honour said he was not satisfied tha 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. On the other hand, he had not been able to give sufficient con adoration to the case to determine his own view, and in au the circumstances he thought he shouli not as a single Judge determine the question. His Honour prop 'sed, therefore, to send this motion oj to the Full Coiut 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 h< had no jurisdiction to admit to bail otherwise. He remitted tho motion to be argued before the Full Court in Wellington.