Children have rights to representation

THE EDITOR: In 2012, the Legal Aid and Advice Act was amended to require the Director of Legal Aid to “prepare and maintain panels of attorneys, known as duty counsel, to provide legal representation for a minor as soon as possible after the minor is detained on suspicion of having committed an offence.”

The act further provides that in a case where a suspect is detained, “the senior officer in charge of the police station or other place of detention shall, as soon as possible, inform the authority (sic) of (a) the name of the suspect and, where the suspect is a minor, the age of the suspect.”

It is quite clear from the wording of the legislation that the police do not have a discretion in the matter and are duty-bound to contact the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority, as soon as possible, once there is in their custody a suspect who is a minor.

While the law is not so clear about the ability of the authority to act, if it is not contacted by the police, my humble submission is that the spirit of the legislation requires that once such a situation is brought to the attention of the authority, it should become proactive and move to protect the rights of the child by providing legal representation.

The authority should, therefore, in such circumstances, contact the relevant senior officer to verify such a minor is in police custody, and then move to appoint duty counsel to represent the minor.

The authority should not adopt the stance that it cannot act unless it has received the required information from the police. Such an approach results in the authority playing into the hands of the police who, for obvious reasons, may decide to wait until it suits their purpose to contact the authority.

The police are required under the Judge’s Rules for Children, 2016, to inform a child in their custody, who has not been arrested, that he may leave the station at any time.

If the child has been arrested, the police must, in addition to contacting duty counsel, get in touch with the child’s parents or guardian as well as the Children’s Authority.

All juvenile justice stakeholders must make that paradigm shift from thinking of children as objects of welfare to regarding them as rights holders. It is difficult for some, but it must be done.

I recall some years ago, while I was conducting training in child justice for magistrates of the Eastern Caribbean and Barbados, a magistrate announced that she did not like lawyers in her court, as they tend to be disruptive of the process.

I had to challenge her that she could not have meant due process, as it was the duty of lawyers to ensure due process, even for a child and, I might add, especially for a disadvantaged child in conflict with the law in our society.

HAZEL THOMPSON-AHYE

child rights advocate