Judge orders boy to remain in ‘safe house’

The teenager, who is awaiting trial for a criminal offence, challenged the decision of the Children’s Authority to place him in a “safe house” after he was ordered removed from the Youth Training Centre (YTC).

His attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, argued the boy was being held in solitary confinement which is not a normal consequence of being on remand.

Justice Vasheist Kokaram in January granted leave to the teen whose mother brought the action complaining that her son was being kept in solitary confinement and was depressed. He was placed in the house after Kokaram, in May last year, ruled the YTC was not suitable as a remand facility for young offenders. The judge held confining juveniles with adults at the YTC and the Women’s Prison in Arouca amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

He orderered the juvenile be placed in a community residence to be determined by the Children’s Authority.

At yesterday’s hearing, Kokaram in an unusual move issued a writ of habeas corpus compelling the authority to bring the minor to court. He was allowed to sit in court with his mother and an aunt.

Kokaram said the conditions under which the child was being detained can only amount to solitary confinement in a limited literal sense as the child has been segregated from other youngsters on remand.

“He is undeniably the only youth confined at the residence but his detention is a novel one.

He is the first of his kind to be housed at the residence having regard to the nature of the order made. If indeed there are no other alternatives and had the order in the YTC proceedings not been the subject of appeal, he may have been joined by other youths on remand until suitable community residences have been approved.” The judge said the teenager’s stay at the residence was comparable to being segregated from the regular juvenile offender population.

He said there was no insidious aspect of such a detention and it was a detention based upon rational and thoughtful assessment.

“Conditions have been established to ameliorate his isolation. His health, educational and physical needs are being addressed.

His surroundings are generous and open. He has opportunities to communicate with and experience the wider world. His conditions are under assessment and review by specialists. His security arrangements are not invasive or oppressive.

The conditions under which he is detained do not meet the minimum severity to be actionable nor amount to a breach of his constitutional rights, nor do those conditions breach the ‘best interest of the child’ principle.” On Tuesday, the judge and the attorneys visited the home and during yesterday’s sitting Kokaram interacted with the teenager, asking him several questions.

In his ruling, Kokaram also provided a non-binding guide to all parties involved on the way forward.

To the child and his family, he said the orders made in the YTC proceedings were for his protection. He urged his mother to continue her regular visits and to include other members of his family.

The judge said the teenager wants to be a soldier and asked if interactions with people from the cadet force of scouts was possible. He said the child was good with his hands and while his cognitive ability was not strong, he was coping.

However he said it was worrying the child tried to escape from the “safe house” and that tantrums may be thrown.

“Which youth is a stranger to this? The task in rehabilitation is to continue to build the child’s foundation,” he said.

To the Children’s Authority, Kokaram said this was an opportunity for them to lead by example, ensure that the care afforded to juvenile offenders in community residences ascribe to that minimum standard and give effect to the “best interest principle” based on their own experience.

“They can be better equipped to judge others based on this experience to advise on the challenges which are met with the detention of young offenders. One hopes that they use this time wisely with the child to properly document the responsiveness of juvenile offenders to a rehabilitative environment.” Representing the boy were attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, leading Ganesh Saroop and Jayanti Lutchmedial.

Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes led Josefina Baptiste-Mohammed and Amrita Ramsook instructed by Keisha Prosper for the Attorney General. Attorneys Sharlene Jaggernauth, Denelle Singh and Nafeesa Mohammed appeared for the Children’s Authority.