– Ramjattan wants offences of truancy, wandering abolished

By Ravin Singh

New legislation designed to soften punishment for young offenders, increase the age at which they can be held responsible for criminal offences and even abandon some offences – such as liming during school hours – is under review.It is likely to be a contentious debate, with Director of the Child Care and Protection Agency, Ann Greene, saying that while 10 years is too young to make a child criminally liable, taking it all the way up to 16 or possibly 18 would be a “hard sell.”

“This new Government of Guyana wants to see an Act which reflects a modern philosophy of juvenile justice, which strengthens the justice system for juveniles, and makes it responsive to them and their situation,” Public Security Minister Ramjattan said Wednesday.

He was speaking at a consultation on the draft Juvenile Justice Bill at the Pegasus hotel in Kingston. Consultations on the Bill are also scheduled for Berbice and Essequibo.

“…we want to see an Act which provides a framework where professionals are in the forefront supporting juveniles rather than police and prison wardens.

“We want to maximize their education, their rehabilitation and their reintegration into society,” Ramjattan stated.

Minister said the issue the age of criminal responsibility is an important one.

“Should it be increased from its present ten (10) years to twelve (12) years or should it go up even further to sixteen (16) years? This consultation exercise will help in letting us policy-makers be informed as to how the people think,” Minister Ramjattan said.

The Minister also expressed his support for the exclusion of status offences in the Draft Bill. He noted that these exist in the current Juvenile Offenders Act. Status Offences are those offences which criminalize behavioral problems of children such as wandering, vagrancy, truancy, runaways.

“These are acts which often are the result of psychological or socio-economic problems. It is particularly a matter of concern that girls and street children are often victims of this kind of criminalization,” Minister Ramjattan said. And given the fact that these acts are not considered criminal when committed by adults, he noted that this is an inherent injustice and reflects discrimination on grounds of age.

Greene, the head of the Child Protection Agency, quoted earlier, said a lot of times children are found wandering because of family situations: Fathers being physically present but emotionally absent; lack of supervision; lack of established parent and child relationship. She explained though that what is important to note is that when children are out wandering, they become involved with criminal elements, which underscores the need for this to be addressed.

Last year, 30 children were sentenced to the New Opportunity Corps (NOC) for the offence of wandering.

Minister Ramjattan also touted reform in the context of providing humane alternatives to incarceration for the young law-breakers.

“Additional and central to these policy innovations which inform this Draft Bill is the search for effective alternatives to prison. Jails and secure confinement are not the place where the substantial majority of our young people who have committed offences should be,” Ramjattan stated.

He explained that this will assist in helping them to avoid falling deeper into a life of crime, and preventing Guyana from becoming a “jailhouse nation”.

“These offences must be abolished. We must enhance humaneness and equity by reducing the use of secure confinement.

“We must not betray young people by continuing the imposition of custodial sentences.

“This must only be an exercise of last resort, where nothing else is left to protect the public,” Ramjattan declared.
In this regard, the Draft Bill makes provision for this alternative which is referred to as ‘Diversion’ in Part two, Clauses six to twelve. This simply translates to the diverting of juveniles from formal Court procedures to informal procedures and includes restorative measures to deal with a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence.

As Clause 9 adumbrates, diversions could range from an apology to compulsory attendance of a specified vocational or education centre; or from community service, to compensation to the victim in an amount which the juvenile’s family can afford. Even at the stage of, or before commencement of proceedings, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or Police Officer can consider warnings and referrals – Clause 4.

Speaking at the opening of the consultation too was UNICEF Representative to Guyana, Marianne Flach, who reaffirmed UNICEF’s commitment in supporting the passage of a Bill that is compliant with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and supporting a vision that would develop measures to prevent, treat and respond to children in contact with the law.

Meanwhile, she sought to encourage Guyana to improve this draft for all youth and adolescents and invest in prevention – through communities, faith-based groups and families to ensure that no child comes into contact with the law.

According to the Minister, the journey of the Bill commenced in 2004. He noted that the then Government had delivered its first Report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child and following that, the Committee made a number of recommendations urging that these be implemented at the earliest possible time.

The Minister recalled that after that, nothing happened for two years. Then in 2006, with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) initiating and the Ministry of Culture Youth and Sport supporting, an expert, Bruce Abramson articulated the need for a new Juvenile Justice Act in a policy paper entitled “A New Juvenile Delinquency Act for Guyana? A decision for Policy Makers in 2006.”

After Abramson’s persuasive arguments, the Minister noted that things moved faster to the extent that by 2007 a Draft was completed. However, as had happened before, the process got stuck for seven years. But in August of last year, he explained that a multi-stakeholder meeting at the Ministry of Public Security decided that consultations should be held for further revisions to be accommodated after which the Bill should be presented to Cabinet for approval. Once this was obtained, it would be laid in the National Assembly for passage.