Protecting most vulnerable

“Unless the public interest requires otherwise, criminal proceedings shall not be instituted or continued against a child if there are alternative means of dealing appropriately with the matter,” the Chief Justice declared as he summarised the Judges Rules for Children.

Such an approach is notable because it represents a voluntary fetter by the Office of the DPP – which has sole discretion on the matter of criminal proceedings under the Constitution – of its powers. Among the entities which played a role in the new rules was the Office of the DPP itself.

But the remit of the new rules extends to areas outside of prosecution.

They shape how the system touches children, ranging from initial engagement to questioning, stop-andsearch, the conduct of identification parades, and, crucially, the obtaining of statements. Some of these matters are subject to statute, but the rules are meant to supplement gaps.

The measures outlined – which Archie said will come into effect in November – are important, particularly in the wake of a recent High Court ruling which condemned the State’s incarceration practices as it relates to children.

We laud all those who collaborated on this suite of legal provisions from the criminal Bar representatives to Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel; the Police Service, the Prison Service, the Solicitor General’s Department, the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority, the Children’s Authority, the Probation Department, registrars, masters and judges who worked tirelessly and “I know it was a labour of love,” the Chief Justice said. “We sat through evenings and weekends and public holidays when I was not racking up frequent-flier miles.” Much was expected in relation to yesterday’s address and the Chief Justice struck the right balance between acknowledging the Judiciary’s limits and providing a plan for the future.

While it is true the Judiciary is not in charge of all the measures needed to get things done, the plans for streamlining cases by limiting bundle sizes, adopting compulsory paper proceedings for procedural matters and enforcement of new criminal procedure rules are all clearly matters within the reach of the Hall of Justice. These should be implemented as soon as possible.

The only damper in the Chief Justice’s speech was his tone of weariness in the face of criticism from radio and social media.

We hold no brief for commentators, nor do we declare all criticism carte blanche fair. But whatever the merits of the views of citizens, all have a right to voice them. The tone of our democracy should not be one of acrimony. Rather, the more energetic discourse the better. Listen, then lead.

On the question of the abolition of trial by jury, the Chief Justice was unrepentant. He admitted to sounding like a stuck record calling for the same thing every year. This year, however, he had the outcome of the Vindra Naipaul-Coolman case to back him up. Using very strong language, he described the lengthy trial as a disaster, even if he sought to remove the presiding judge from the scope of his critique.

The reality is that a public that is sceptical will not likely embrace the idea of trial without jury. And for several reasons. In the first place, the confidence in law enforcement agencies is low given the low rate of detection. Furthermore, in a society where police officers often act with impunity, where things like the day of “total policing” simply come and go with no one held responsible, citizens – rightly or wrongly – mistrust every single apparatus of the criminal justice system. If we cannot trust our constables, can we trust a single judge to be fair? Is a jury not a better protection against a potentially corrupt system? The Chief Justice, therefore, has considerable obstacles to overcome if we are to be convinced. For good reason, some aspects of reform have not been child’s play.