Submitted by crinadmin on
[22 February 2010] - A Bill that would see children aged 12 and 13 referred to the Youth Court instead of the Family Court is at odds with New Zealand’s international obligations, says the UN Children’s Fund. Parliament will consider on Wednesday (24 Feb.) the Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders Amendment Bill in its third and final reading. The Social Services Select Committee recommended that 12 and 13-year-old offenders who commit serious crimes can be referred to the Youth Court. Under the law as it currently stands, very young children (12 and 13-year-olds are children by definition) who commit serious offences are dealt with in the Family Court which has a range of powers to involve family members, intervene, ensure accountability and make orders that directly address the impact of offending, including reparation or forfeiture. UNICEF NZ Executive Director, Dennis McKinlay, says the Bill a backward step in the treatment of children who commit serious crimes. “Lowering the age at which children can enter into the realm of criminal jurisdiction takes New Zealand in the opposite direction to that proposed by international and national experts on criminality and human rights. “The vast majority of submissions to the Select Committee recommended against the proposal. There is no evidence that it will reduce the involvement of children in crime or that it will make communities safer. “The Bill as it stands is totally at odds with New Zealand’s obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the expectations of the UN Committee on Child Rights, which will review New Zealand’s performance against those obligations later this year”. Article 40 of the Convention is concerned with how children who have committed crimes should be treated. Its focus is to promote reintegration of the child into a constructive role in society. It obliges governments to help children achieve this, wherever possible, without resorting to judicial proceedings. The child, by reason of physical and mental immaturity, needs particular care including proper legal protection. “This does not suggest that children should not be accountable for their actions but that by virtue of their age it must be managed within a context that safeguards their status as children,” says Mr McKinlay. “Except in extremely rare cases, serious and/or persistent offending by children is related to background circumstances of family dysfunction, abuse and neglect. “If these children are to be diverted from a path of criminality, the offending must be dealt with appropriately in the context of their family circumstances. The Family Court, with its specialist expertise and authority, is the appropriate mechanism to engage families in the rehabilitation and to address care and protection issues. “As one submitter noted, rather than re-inventing the wheel inflate it and resource it adequately so it can work better”... “While the Youth Court is well-equipped with a range of sentencing options suitable for young people, it is not at all prudent for children to be involved with the legal processes and procedures of a court. Keeping them out of the system, yet ensuring accountability is well recognised as a more viable method of preventing children embarking on a pathway to future criminality. “To disregard the authority of the Convention and consequently New Zealand’s influence in the global call to make a world more fit for children will negate our proud record of standing for human dignity through upholding human rights”. Further information