Judge clears the air on sermon

HIGH COURT judge Frank Seepersad has sought to clarify his position in his call for laws to hold parents responsible for their children’s criminal actions.

The judge, a lay minister for the past 2- years. made the call during a recent sermon on Parental and Youth Accountability at the Marabella Presbyterian Church.

Following his statement the Judiciary issued its own advisory, saying such laws already existed and pointed to Section 57 (1) to (5) of the Chi-dren Act No. 12 of 2012, as well as the Miscellaneous Provisions (Supreme Court of Judicature and Children) Act, 2018.

In a letter to the editor, Seepersad said he was “acutely aware” of the legislation referred to in the Judiciary’s press release, but said he made no specific reference to legislation because he was delivering a sermon, not a legal presentation.

He also said, section 57 gives the court with a discretion, which may or may not be exercised by the presiding judicial officer. This discretion exists in the context of the rehabilitative approach which has to be adopted and does not create a criminal offence.“The sermon focused on the need for accountability at all levels and in relation to the issue of parental responsibility and accountability, called for consideration to be given to the enactment of more effective laws so as to impose sanctions on those whose children are involved in gang activity, harbour guns at home or who create social havoc.

“Such a circumstance is not covered by section 57 of the Children's Act and it was advanced that in the absence of such a legislative framework, the common law could be creatively utilised. The sermon also referenced section 50(a) of the Miscellaneous Provisions 2018 Act, given that it was expressly stated that in relation to children who are not listening, their parents should inform the police and " let the judicial system take hold them so that a structured path to rehabilitation could be engaged”," he said.

Seepersad also pointed of that the code of ethics for judges outlined the responsibilities and expectations

of judges both in their public and private lives.

“It also underscores the ability of judges, outside of their court work, to speak on matters of law and to engage in teaching and training. Drawn to the jurisprudential theory of legal interpretivism and being resolute in the view that the law has to be relevant and relatable, the overriding objective of the sermon was to initiate a reasoned debate in relation to the root causes of the current state of social disjunction, to encourage a willingness for greater societal support to those who are vulnerable and to develop within the society, the temerity to confront those who enable criminal conduct.

“The timely press release by the Judiciary on this issue, given the deafening silence on other significant matters of national importance which impact upon the administration of justice, is indeed refreshing and it is hoped that all issues which impact, inter alia, upon the public's confidence in the Judiciary, would be addressed with a renewed measure of alacrity. “