[Home] [Databases] [Search] [Feedback] [Help] | ||
Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan |
REFORMING THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM
Report No. 30
CONTENTS
1.
Summary
of Recommendations
A. Administrative Measures
B. Legislative Measures
2. Introduction
3. International Law
4. Domestic Legislation
5. Recommendations for Reform
A. Administrative Measures
1- Designating Juvenile Courts
2- Establishing Juvenile Institutions
3- Training of Staff
B. Legislative Measures
1- Minimum and Maximum Age for Criminal
Liability
2- Maximum Age for Entry into Juvenile
Justice System
3- Detention Pending Trial
4- Disposal of Juvenile cases by Diversion
Summary
of Recommendations A. Administrative Measures (i) Separate juvenile courts should be
created/designated for the trial of children in conflict with the law. This may
increase the workload of existing courts, which problem should be overcome
through gradual increase in the number of judges. (ii) The Government should establish separate
juvenile placement institutions for the protection, reform and rehabilitation
of juvenile offenders. Appropriate facilities for board, lodging, health care,
education and training of the inmates must be provided in such institutions.
Where appropriate, philanthropists, NGO representatives and other volunteers
may also be associated in the task. (iii) The staff and personnel responsible for
managing the juvenile justice system, namely, police personnel, judicial
officers, probation officers, prison staff, court personnel and lawyers, etc
must be given proper orientation/training so that they are sensitised to and
educated about the manners and methods of handling children. (iv) The present system of probation should be
properly organised so that children-in-detention are entrusted to the
care/protection of probation officers, under the overall supervision of the
court of law. B. Legislative Measures (i) The Sindh Children Act 1955 has been in
force since 1976. The Punjab Youthful Offenders Ordinance 1983, which is
currently enforced only in one district, namely, Sahiwal should be enforced
throughout the Province. Similarly, the provinces of the NWFP and Baluchistan
should also enact/adopt appropriate legislation on the subject. (ii) The Punjab Youthful Offenders Ordinance
1983, which incorporates fairly modern principles and concepts of modern
jurisprudence in the area of juvenile justice may, with further necessary
adjustments/improvements, be adopted as a model juvenile justice code. It
should be given overriding effect, vis-à-vis other laws on the subject. The
juvenile courts, due to their experience and professionalism, would be more
appropriate fora for handling juvenile cases. (iii) The age prescribed by the Sindh Children
Act, viz. 16 years, may be uniformly followed all over the country and children
below this age limit should be exclusively dealt-with by separate juvenile
courts. (iv) The detention of children alleged to have
violated the law should be a measure of last resort and for the shortest
possible period of time. Therefore, the courts should promptly decide the bail
applications, keeping in view the best interest of the child. At the bail
granting stage, the court may also consider sending the child under the
supervision of probation officer or guidance of parents/guardian. v) Custodial sentences of children should
be minimised. The courts while disposing off juvenile cases, should consider
employing other appropriate alternative methods, namely, restitution, financial
compensation, placing the child in the care/guidance/supervision of a family
member or probation officer or putting the child to community service, thereby
ensuring the constructive utilisation of his potential/energies. Introduction The Pakistan Law Commission in its meeting held on 19
December 1998, and again, 14 March 1999, considered a draft paper on reform of
the juvenile justice system in the country. The Commission having examined all
aspects of the issue, expressed its dissatisfaction over gaps/defects in
legislation on the subject and the non-existence of adequate number of separate
institutions for the placement, reformation and rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders. The Commission noted that the present legislation in the country on
the subject is too sketchy and restricted to just one province, namely, Sindh.
The Province of the Punjab, it was noted, has a statute i. e. Youthful
Offenders Ordinance 1983 on the subject, but the same has not yet been enforced
except in District Sahiwal. The other two provinces, namely, the NWFP and
Baluchistan do not have any such legislation. The Commission observed that children, because of their
tender age, are vulnerable to abuse/exploitation, hence, require
safeguards/protection. They must be treated more humanely and their honour and
dignity fully protected. The Commission appreciated the fact that some High
Courts have duly designated juvenile courts for the trial of children and the
others are in the process of doing so. The Commission considered and
approved the following draft report on juvenile justice: Factors or motivations, which instigate or induce
criminal conduct, vary among juveniles and adults. This is so because whereas
the former are not fully conscious of the effects and consequences of their
conduct the latter are aware and know/understand their actions. A child, far
from being the perpetrator of a criminal act, is often the victim of circumstances,
which force him/her to react in a certain manner and exhibit criminal conduct.
His/her criminal propensity is partly due to neglect, perhaps abuse, by others.
His/her parents, guardian and society in general, equally ought to share the
guilt and should be indicted for the same. It is a proven fact that the trial,
conviction and consequential punishment of a juvenile offender, neither help in
reforming him/her nor in eliminating crime from the society. It was in
recognition of this fact that a separate juvenile justice system was evolved
and special laws and procedures devised for the treatment, trial, placement and
rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. The system is gaining currency among the
nations of the world and is being followed and applied in increasing
jurisdictions. International Law The international instruments, namely, the Charter of
the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, lay special emphasis
on the inherent dignity and worth of human person.[1] They guarantee liberty
and security of person,[2] prohibit torture as well as cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment[3] and the arbitrary arrest or detention of a
person.[4] They also prohibit the imposition of death sentence for a crime
committed by a child below 18 years of age.[5] The Convention on the Rights of
the Child 1989, which came into force in 1990, has so far been ratified by 182
States,[6] including Pakistan.[7] In terms of number of accessions, the
Convention stands almost at par with the Charter of the United Nations. Such an
overwhelming response reflects the determination of the international community
to improve the status and conditions of children and work for their welfare and
development. The Convention contains three articles, namely, Article
37, 39 & 40, which give a fairly exhaustive account of the rights and
safeguards available to juveniles, confronted with the law. Such rights and
safeguards may be listed under three (pre-trial, during-trial and post-trial)
headings: 1- Pre-trial i. The State shall fix a minimum age for
criminal liability; ii. The accused child shall be presumed
innocent till proven guilty; iii. The State shall ensure protection
against retrospective punishment; iv. No child shall be arrested or detained
save in accordance with the law and such detention must be as a "measure
of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time"; v. The child must be promptly informed,
through his parents or guardian, of the charges against him; vi. The child must be treated with dignity
and honour, and his privacy must be fully respected; vii. The State shall enact special laws and
procedures for the trial and treatment of the juvenile offenders; viii. Such laws must provide for “diversion”
and/or other alternatives to formal trial. 2- During Trial i. An independent and impartial judicial
forum of competent jurisdiction should conduct the trial; ii. The child should have the assistance
of an interpreter, in case he does not understand the court language; iii. The child should have protection
against self-incrimination and must not be forced to confess his guilt; iv. The State must make available to the
child legal aid and other assistance in the preparation/presentation of his
defense; v. The child should get a fair hearing;
must be enabled to produce evidence in his favour and cross-examine witnesses
against him; vi. The court should conduct the
proceedings expeditiously and announce its judgment promptly; vii. The court while deciding the case,
should consider "the best interest of the child" and must take into
account the age and situation of the child; viii. The child must have the right to have an
adverse Judgment reviewed
by a higher (equally independent, impartial and competent) court of appeal. 3- Post-trial i. No child below 18 years of age should
be punished with death sentence or life imprisonment, without any possibility
of release; ii. No child shall be subjected to torture
or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment; iii. During detention, the juvenile
delinquents must be kept separate from the adult criminals; iv. During placement in a juvenile
institution, the child must have regular contact with his family. v. The State shall establish institutions
for the care, education and training of the juvenile delinquents so that they
are rehabilitated and reintegrated into the society; vi. As an alternative to placing the child
in an institution, the State should establish a system of guidance, counseling
and probation for his rehabilitation. Besides the Convention, certain other international
human rights instruments also exist which prescribe minimum standards for the
treatment of juvenile delinquents and their reformation/rehabilitation in the
society. Such instruments include the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules 1985); the United
Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of the Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh
Guidelines 1990) and the United Nations Guidelines for the Protection of
Children Deprived of their Liberty (the UN Rules 1990). These Rules and
Guidelines prescribe minimum standards for the handling of the juvenile
offenders and their treatment in corrective institutions. They are couched in
general words and have a degree of flexibility, so as to be conveniently
adopted by different states, at various stages of legal and socio-economic
development. Their application is required to be impartial without any
distinction/discrimination on any ground. Domestic Legislation The Constitution of Pakistan contains sufficient
safeguards against arrest and detention. The person detained is required to be
promptly informed of the grounds of arrest, produced before the court and
provided the assistance of a legal counsel.[8] Retrospective or double
punishment and self-incrimination are prohibited.[9] The Constitution
guarantees the dignity of man and prohibits torture for the purpose of
extracting evidence.[10] It requires the State to make appropriate arrangements
for the protection of child.[11] Such constitutional safeguards are duly reflected in the
criminal law. The Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confers absolute presumption of
innocence on a child below 7 years of age[12] and a rebuttable presumption on a
child between 7 - 12 years of age.[13] The Criminal Procedure Code 1908
provides that a child under 16 years of age may be released on bail, even if
accused of a non-bailable offence carrying death penalty or life
imprisonment.[14] The Code further provides for the confinement of a youthful
convict (under the age of 15 years) in a reformatory school wherein necessary
training should be given to such offender.[15] It empowers the court to release
a first time convicted offender not punishable with death or life imprisonment,
below 21 years of age, on probation of good conduct instead of being
sentenced.[16] Similarly, the court, having regard to the age of a convicted
person imprisoned for up to two years, may release him after due
admonition.[17] The Reformatory Schools Act 1897 -- the first special
law on the treatment of juvenile convicts -- provides for the establishment of
schools where male child convicts, below 15 years of age, may be kept. The Act
provides for the proper training of such inmates. The inmates may have to spend
from 3 to 7 years in such school. Similarly, the Punjab Borstal Act 1926 speaks
of the establishment of borstal schools, for segregating adolescent prisoners
(below 21 years of age) from adult ones, and giving them industrial training.
The Act provides for the regulation and management of such schools. The Act
further provides for a Visiting Committee with power to cause the release of an
inmate on license. The Sindh Children Act 1955 is a consolidating and amending
law on the custody, protection, treatment and rehabilitation of youthful
offenders. This Act remained inoperative for some time and was enforced only in
1976. It applies to children under 16 years and accords them special rights in
the areas of bail, trial and sentencing. The Punjab Youthful Offenders
Ordinance 1983 is the latest law on the subject, but has not yet been enforced
except in District Sahiwal. The law contains fairly modern notions and latest
concepts on the treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents, below 15
years of age. It provides for the establishment of separate juvenile courts and
prescribes special procedure for the arrest/detention, custody and trial of
juvenile delinquents. It also sets up corrective schools and institutions for
their placement and rehabilitation. The Government has already initiated the process of
reviewing the existing laws and procedures so as to bring them in conformity
with the provisions of the CRC. It introduced the Child Offenders Bill 1995 in
the Parliament. The Standing Committee of the Senate has since approved the
Bill. The proposed Bill is fairly comprehensive in scope and provides several
safeguards for juvenile offenders. It seeks to establish special juvenile
courts for the trial of children fewer than 16 years of age. It provides for
the abolition of capital punishment, corporal punishment, whipping, labour and
the use of fetters and handcuffs for children. Legal aid is required to be
provided to the accused child at State expense. There are fairly liberal
provisions for the grant of bail and release of child on probation. Children
placed in borstal institutions are required to be given proper facilities of
accommodation, food, health, education and training so as to reform and
rehabilitate them in the society. Recommendations
for Reform A: Administrative
Measures 1. Designating Juvenile Courts: Due to gaps in legislation as well
as non-enforcement or flawed-enforcement of laws, children facing trial or
detention, have to face great hardships. The Commission takes the view that
financial constraints may prevent the government from resolving all the
problems in one go, but it would be wrong to assume that even small and
moderate steps in this respect cannot be taken. Given the political will and
sincere commitment to implement the principles of the Convention, a gradual
process of its enforcement/implementation can and must be initiated. Separate
courts must decide juvenile cases, but all such courts cannot be created at
once. This problem, however, can be overcome by designating some, from among
the existing courts, to act as juvenile courts. This, of course, will increase
momentarily, the burden of such courts, but a gradual increase in the number of
judicial officers, will ultimately resolve the problem. Let a modest but
gradual programme of creating separate juvenile courts is planned in such a way
that the process is completed within the next 5 years. 2. Establishing Juvenile Institutions: In the same way, planning must be
made and action initiated for the establishment of juvenile institutions.
Currently, there are only two separate juvenile jail-cum-borstal institutions
in the country, one at Bahawalpur (Punjab) and the other at Landhi (Sindh). In
NWFP, a separate juvenile circle has been established in the Central Prison at
Peshawar. Similarly, the Prison at Haripur also has a juvenile camp, situated at
Nathiagali. In Baluchistan, the convicted juveniles are housed separately at
the Central Prison at Mach. Elsewhere in the country, complete separation of
the juveniles from adult prisoners has not been effected. In places where it is
done, the environments as well as conditions are far from satisfactory. This is
so because juvenile sections are created within the precincts of jails. International instruments and
domestic law lay emphasis on the separation of juveniles from adults, not just
in prison but also while in police/judicial custody, so that the young
offenders are saved from abuse and criminal contamination. The Government must,
therefore, prepare a planned strategy for resolving this problem. To start
with, arrangements must be made for separating juveniles from adults in all
prisons. But segregation alone will not be sufficient; conditions inside such
places must also improve, making them conducive for the education, training and
rehabilitation of its inmates. The Government must also plan simultaneously for
establishing separate juvenile institutions, equipped with necessary facilities
of board and lodging including medical care and educational/training
arrangements. 3. Training of Staff: Similarly, arrangements
should be made for creating proper institutions and administrative structures
for organising/managing the juvenile justice system. The staff of such
institutions should be given proper orientation and training, sensitising them
to the peculiar conditions and special needs of the juveniles. Thus, proper
training must be arranged for all such personnel who come in contact with
juvenile offenders. This would include, inter alia, police personnel,
prosecution staff, lawyers, judicial officers, probation officers, jail staff
and the staff working in juvenile placement institutions. B. Legislative
Measures As regards legal reforms, the Government must examine
the possibility of gradually enforcing the Punjab Youthful Offenders Ordinance
1983 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance). This law being the latest in the
field is fairly up-to-date, as it incorporates latest principles and concepts
from modern jurisprudence, particularly in the area of criminal justice system.
This Ordinance, with some minor adjustments and improvements, may be made into
a model juvenile justice code. Such a code should be given overriding effect
vis-a-vis other laws on the subject. It should be adopted by other provinces
and gradually enforced. However, with a
view to further improve its provisions and harmonise them with the Convention
and other international instruments, the following changes/additions may be
incorporated in its text: 1- Minimum and Maximum Age for Criminal
Liability The Pakistan Penal Code prescribes 7
years as the maximum age for exemption from penal liability. The Code carries
such exemption to 12 years, provided that it can be shown to the satisfaction
of the court that the accused had not yet attained sufficient maturity of
understanding the nature and consequences of his conduct on the occasion. This
practice of fixing two age limits, one subject to binding presumption and the
other rebuttable presumption, is followed in most of the Commonwealth
jurisdictions. The practice elsewhere in the world is, however, different. Such
practice as to minimum and maximum age limit varies, as different states have
prescribed different limits, ranging from 6 to 18 years.[18] Some states, on
the other hand, prescribe no minimum age limit.[19] There are certain other
countries where the issue of criminal liability is decided, not on the basis of
any prescribed age limit, but a study of the mental and psychological
state/quality of the child, and his role in the commission of the alleged
offence. In such cases, there is an individual determination by the court as to
whether or not the child deserves to be tried and punished as an adult.[20] Keeping in view such wide and varied
practice and the divergent views/opinions as to the merits and demerits of
determining such minimum and maximum age limits, it is safe not to suggest any
alteration to the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code. Instead a procedural
change may be proposed which will help improve the child situation.
Accordingly, it is suggested that the proposed Code may be given overriding
effect so that children are tried by juvenile courts. The juvenile court, due
to its aptitude, experience and professionalism, would be indeed a more
appropriate forum to decide such matters, and in keeping with the child’s age,
mental ability, character, etc decide upon appropriate course of action for
release or placement in a correctional institution. 2- Maximum Age for Entry into Juvenile
Justice System The Ordinance prescribes 15 years as
the maximum age for entry into the juvenile justice system.[21] The Sindh
Children Act 1955 puts the age limit at 16. The pending, Child Offenders Bill
1995, has followed the same. Elsewhere in the world, the age limit varies, the
highest being set at 21 years.[22] Thus, there is no uniform international
practice on the question of fixing maximum age limit for availing the system of
juvenile justice administration. The international instruments though suggest
18 years as the maximum age.[23] Having examined the issue, the Commission
takes the view that, for the time being, the age limit prescribed by the Sindh
Children Act 1955 i.e. 16 years may be retained and uniformly followed all over
the country, and the cases of children below the said age limit be tried
exclusively by the juvenile courts. 3. Detention
Pending Trial The Criminal Procedure Code empowers
the court to release a child under 16 years of age on bail, even when charged
with a non-bailable offence. The Ordinance on the other hand provides that when
a child, accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested and cannot be brought
before the court forthwith, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station shall
release him on bail. The court, however, may cancel such a bail, if convinced
that the release is likely to expose the child to danger or criminal activities
or would defeat the ends of justice.[24] But since the Ordinance has not yet
come into operation, this provision does not apply and the issue continues to
be governed by the Criminal Procedure Code. The court that decides the issue of
detention pending trial is an ordinary criminal court, which follows the
general criminal law. The detention of a child is indeed a
serious matter as it exposes the child to several harmful consequences.
Firstly, the child loses the care, support and protection of his family, thus
is vulnerable to abuse, exploitation and criminal contamination. Secondly, the
child may suffer from torture or cruelty or some other inhuman or degrading
treatment, which may damage his personality. It is, therefore, necessary that
pre-trial detention be not resorted to as a routine measure. Exceptional
circumstances and pressing reasons, such as preventing repetition of crime,
recidivism, enforcing attendance before the court of law or saving the child
from further harm/danger, etc alone, would ordinarily qualify to be
reasons/grounds for such detention. Both the Convention[25] and the Beijing
Rules[26] provide that detention pending trial must be used "only as a
measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time."
Certain countries duly incorporated this provision in their national laws.[27]
It is, therefore, necessary that the present legislation pertaining to
detention pending trial is reviewed and reformed on the following lines: i. Detention should be as a measure of
last resort, meaning it should be resorted to under exceptional circumstances
and for pressing reasons; ii. Detention should be for the shortest
possible period. The court should immediately take up the matter and after
weighing the facts and circumstances of the case, promptly decide the question
of release on bail. In doing so the age, antecedents and status of the child
must be given due consideration; iii. In dealing with the bail issue, the
court must also examine other alternative measures such as supervision by
probation officer, guidance of parents/guardian, etc. 4- Disposal of Juvenile cases by Diversion With a view to saving the youthful
offenders from the possible negative effects/consequences of criminal justice
administration (involving the trial ordeal and stigma of
conviction/punishment), the Convention[28] as well as Beijing Rules[29]
envisage the disposal of juvenile cases through diversion, meaning disposition
without resorting to formal trial. Cases involving minor penalties or only
financial liabilities may be disposed of through this mechanism. Similarly, in
keeping with the age, character and status of the offender and the
circumstances of the case, such an alternative method of disposition may be
employed. The disposition measures may involve restitution or compensation to
the victim, placement of the juvenile under guidance or supervision of the
family/probation officer and referral to community service, etc. No equivalent provision of this
nature exists in our national law. In keeping with the international standards
and with a view to improve our present system of juvenile administration, it is
recommended that an appropriate provision providing for diversion may be
enacted. Such a provision must specify the type of cases (non-violent,
involving minor penalties, only financial compensation, etc) and
category/characteristics of offenders (age, personality, character, etc) to be
dealt with through diversion. Disposition measures such as restitution,
financial compensation, care/guidance/supervision by family/schools/community/
institutions, etc must also be specified. References 1. Preamble of the Charter of the United
Nations; Art 10 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. 2. Art 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Art
9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 3. Art 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Art 7
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 4. Art 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and
Art 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 5.
Art 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 6. By 30 June 1996 7. Pakistan ratified the Convention on 12
November 1990 8. Art 10 9. Articles 12 & 13 10. Art 14 1[1]. Art 35 [1]2. Section 82 [1]3. Section 83 [1]4. Section 497(1) [1]5. Section 399 [1]6. Section 562 [1]7. Section 562(1A) [1]8. 6-12 years in some States of Mexico and USA; 7 years in Bangladesh,
Egypt, Switzerland; 10 years in Malaysia and Japan; and 18 years in Iraq &
Venezuela (Source: Report prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Mary Conception,
Bautista for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities (ECOSOC). [1]9. France and Uruguay 20. USA, J.K. & Canada 2[1]. Section 2(1)(a) 22. 17 years in Costa Rica, Guyana &
Jamaica; 18 years in China, Switzerland, Egypt & Iraq; 19 years in Austria;
20 years in Cuba and 21 years in Philippines and Sweden 23. Article 1 & 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child 1898 and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights 1966 24. Section 41 25. Article 37(b) 26. Rule 13.1 27. Australia and Brazil 28. Article 40(3)(b) 29. Rule 11
CommonLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.commonlii.org/pk/other/PKLJC/reports/30.html