Please help the CAA in its work by making a donation, all funds will be used directly for our volunteer work.
Go to https://gofund.me/fafd2ae0
Reported in The Herald Sun on 23 July under the headline, ‘Magistrate hits out at youth crime, etc,’ a 14-year-old boy appeared before a Children’s Court charged with serious offences, including assaulting an innocent victim with a machete and nearly severing his hand.
The hearing related to a bail application by the offender.The youth had previously been charged with 400 offences, most of which were wiped by the Court.
Magistrate – “This is exactly what the government has asked to stop. And what happens? It happens again. How do I have any comfort that a bladed weapon is not to be produced again?”
Lawyer – “Doesn’t have a history? I’ll tell you what, that knife came out with experience”. (meaning obscure)
Magistrate – “The government has an apparent position as to knife crime, and if people don’t understand it, they are not reading the papers or not understanding what politics is.”
The crux of the issue is the apparent disconnect between the judiciary and the reality of the perpetrators they are required to adjudicate.
If the Government wants to communicate a message, it is no good telling those who are not involved other than as Victims.
They should explore ways to inform young potential perpetrators, perhaps through social media platforms they follow and understand. Billboards in Shopping centres or other places where young people gather would be another useful start.
If a Magistrate believes that a 14-year-old has the slightest idea of a Government position on knife crime or the likelihood they read the papers, then woe betide the future of our justice system.
A 14-year-old is still a child, and that’s why they appear before a Children’s Court. It is an indictment of the judiciary that the Court has a poor understanding of the people it deals with.
The Magistrate has some redemption in refusing Bail for a particularly gruesome crime. However, the lack of understanding of the psychology of the youth appearing before the Court needs urgent adjustment.
Equally or more significant to the failure of our legal system, especially regarding children, is that this child appeared before the Court as a first offender. While that may be true, it is unlikely that he is.
Under the new age restrictions allowing Doli Incapax to be more widely used, the child may have committed substantial crimes of which the Court is never made aware.
It may be the first time he has appeared in Court, but there is every possibility this is not his first offence.
The practice of withholding from the judiciary the history of whether a child has previously committed offences or received an Official Police caution is a disgrace. It restricts the judiciary’s ability to understand the proper development and behaviour of a juvenile, effectively keeping them in the dark.
This is also true of the application of the Doli Incapax rule, where a child cannot be charged, although the crime may be as severe or as serious that they would appear before a court once they turn 14.
It is up to the judiciary to decide how much weight to give a police caution, but whether a child has never received one or has received multiple cautions, especially considering the type of offences involved, should be a mandatory consideration.
What has been lost in all the recent changes in the legal status of children has been not only the impact on victims not seeing justice done, but, as necessary, the Justice for the children.
Arbitrary ages applied to children don’t work. What changes in a child between 13 years and 11 months and 14 years old, where they can be charged; nothing.
The major flaw with the current approach is that early intervention, the most likely intervention to succeed, is blocked. Why does a child who commits offences not be held to account at any age? It is the penalty where adjustments are made.
This young serial offender was excused for committing almost four hundred crimes under the Doli Incapax rule, despite having been bailed fifty times. For Doli Incapax to apply, the offender should not know that what he was doing was wrong. After so many court appearances and instances of bail, how could the rule have applied in this case and on this scale? Surely a miscarriage of justice to all his victims.
The application of Doli Incapax should be the purview of the Courts. The police should be enabled to charge any person, irrespective of age, with crimes they have committed, and the Court can decide whether Doli incapax applies, by considering evidence on the issue, not an arbitrary age one-size-fits-all approach.
Taking no action is equivalent to accepting the behaviour, and the outcome is likely to lead to more criminal behaviour.
Why are our children blocked from benefiting from early intervention?
It is past time for a realistic and practical approach to be applied to juvenile crime in this State.
Our history demonstrates we are woeful at dealing with the issue, and thousands of children’s lives are ruined by inaction, with thousands of victims left behind.
Moreover, the judiciary must be exposed to the realities of life, as they often appear to live in a bubble devoid of practical knowledge and the wisdom that comes with that exposure.