Child Justice Bill: [B49-2002]
Further written comments: Prof SS Terblanche
Background
During oral
representations on 12 February 2007, the Committee proposed that I provide
additional input concerning guidelines for the imposition of the “sentence of compulsory residence in
residential facility” (cl 77 of the Bill). I claimed in my written comments
that there are no guidelines in the Bill as to the imposition of this
sentence, in contrast to wide-ranging guidelines with respect to the imposition
of sentences of restorative justice and imprisonment, to name only two
examples.
Looking into the matter again, I realised
that my original statement was in fact incorrect and that it should be
withdrawn. There are guidelines for the imposition of compulsory residence in
clause 70(3), which I forgot about when looking at clauses 76 and 78. I
apologise for this and wish to withdraw the statement that the Bill contains no
guidance regarding the guidelines and considerations that a child justice court
should take into account when sentencing a child to reside in a residential
facility.
However, since the “factors to be
considered” are the same for residential facilities and imprisonment, I
nevertheless take this opportunity to make further representations with respect
to guidelines to distinguish compulsory residence in a residential facility
from imprisonment, from a legislative perspective.
The Law (Reform)
Commission’s discussions
The Law
Commission (as it then was) discussed the position of the current reform
schools in some detail, both in its Discussion Paper: Juvenile Justice (Nov
1999) and its Report: Juvenile Justice (Jul 2000 – mainly pars 10.8 to 10.10). It
is clear from these discussions that there was general support for the
retention of an institution where child offenders could be detained, but then
with a specific focus on the education of those children. The proposal to do
away with the term “reform school” has more to do with the stigma attached to
reform schools and current international usage than with an intention to break
away from the original intention with which reform schools were established.
The factors
included in clause 70(3)
The factors
mentioned in clause 70(3) of the Child Justice Bill should be taken into
consideration by the court both when imposing compulsory residence and when
imprisonment. These considerations are largely based on clause 90 of the Law
Commission’s draft bill (see the Report).
It is important to consider the usefulness of each of these considerations.
The seriousness
of the crime
It is trite that
the crime seriousness is an important consideration with the sentencing of
every single offence and every kind of sentence. Alternative sentences are only
appropriate when the crime falls within the lower range of crime seriousness.
Clearly, compulsory residence should only be imposed when the crime falls
somewhere in the range of more serious crimes. Imprisonment should be limited
to the most serious crimes. Obviously, this range of crimes is a continuum and
one cannot draw fixed lines anywhere, but it is submitted that the legislation
should get across the idea that compulsory residence is aimed at serious crime.
This is the current position with respect to reform schools, where it is
acknowledged as a severe sentence which removes the child from their community
and takes away their freedom.
The protection of
the community
The protection of the community is clearly a
major consideration when it comes to the imposition of imprisonment. However,
it is submitted that such protection should not be a major consideration when
compulsory residence is concerned. The protection of society was not discussed
in the Law Commission’s report in this connection, neither is it a major factor
in the imposition of reform schools. Rather, the aspect of detention is aimed
at ensuring the child’s presence for the various educational programs presented
at the facility, as well as punishment in the form of restriction of freedom of
movement.
The severity of
the impact on the victim
The heading to
clause 71 of the Bill (“Impact of offence on victim”) indicates that there is a
link between that clause and this factor. Perhaps this is fine…
The previous
failure of the child to respond to non-residential alternatives
This is a useful
guideline. Clearly, a child who has previously failed to comply or “respond” to
non-residential options is more likely to end up in a residential facility.
However, this should never be a factor by itself, but should be balanced with
the other factors and the legislation should require such balancing. Perhaps
this is implicit.
The desirability
of keeping the child out of prison
Clearly, this
factor cannot stand as far as residential facilities are concerned. The
question is whether the point should be made in legislation that it remains
desirable to sentence the child to non-custodial sentence whenever possible. It
is submitted that little is to be gained by such a statement.
Additional
factors
Education
Since the main
aim of compulsory residence in a residential facility is the education of the
child, this factor should be specifically mentioned.
I have not been
able, in the short time at my disposal, to find analogous measures in the legal
systems of other countries. The closest I have been able to find is the youth
sentence as applied in German Law. Certainly, neither the Canadian Youth Criminal
Justice Act (2002, c 1) nor the New Zealand Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 No 24
contains any sentence with a residential requirement where education is the
main aim.
Example of
possible wording.
In section 17(2) of
the German Juvenile Justice Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz)
reads as follows:
The court imposes
the youth sentence when, based on the harmful tendencies of the juvenile, as it
emerged from the crime, non-residential options will not suffice or when
punishment is required due to the extent of his or her blameworthiness.
§ 18 Duration
of youth sentence
(1) The youth
sentence lasts at least six months and at most five years. If the crime is so
serious that it is punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment in terms of
the general criminal law, the maximum is ten years. Die sentencing frameworks
of the general criminal law is not applicable.
(2) The youth
sentence is executed in such a manner that the required educational effect is
achievable.
Execution of
sentence
I appreciate the
opportunity to present these written comments and wish the Committee all the
best with the important task of passing the Child Justice Bill into
legislation.
Signed: SS
Terblanche
Department of
Criminal and Procedural Law
PO Box 392
UNISA
0003