Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons.
- Great Britain. Committee on Children and Young Persons
- Date:
- 1960
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons. Source: Wellcome Collection.
38/192 page 28
![70. Most of the evidence we received on this question, however, favoured the retention of juvenile courts as the tribunals dealing with juvenile offenders and children in need of care or protection or beyond control. Those who held this view thought it necessary for the proper protection of those who are the subject of proceedings that the tribunal should be a court of law, and that the power to interfere with personal liberty should be entrusted only to a court. They emphasised also the deterrent value of appearance ‘before a court. They admitted that some of the _ objections to non-judicial tribunals applied with less force where “ care or protection” or “beyond control” proceedings were in question, but considered the careful proof required by a court of law, in these cases as in others, to be a valuable protection for the child and a safeguard against abuse.. They saw no sufficient reason for replacing the juvenile courts, which were generally of good standing and repute, and worked well on the whole, by committees, boards or commissioners of the kind suggested. 71. We doubt whether there is any force in the argument, used by those who favour substituting a non-judicial tribunal for the juvenile court, that the change would avoid the stigma of a court appearance and the stigma of a‘finding of guilt. We think it likely that any stigma there may be would come to attach to appearance, as a result of -bad behaviour, before any tribunal. 72. We have some sympathy with the other points made by those who favour a non-judicial tribunal. In considering them, we have been led to examine the broad effect on juvenile courts of their descent from ordinary criminal courts and of their functions as welfare agencies. Their composition and procedure are essentially those of ordinary magistrates’ courts, with modifications. But the juvenile court has acquired important characteristics and functions as a social agency, as well as being a criminal court. This duality is seen, for example, in the court’s jurisdiction in ‘‘ care or protection”’’ and “beyond control” cases, a jurisdiction grafted on to the basic jurisdiction, with a procedure largely assimilated to the trial of offences. Yet juvenile courts inherited most of the principles and concepts of the criminal] courts, and, while these contain much that is of value to the working of the courts, they have in some respects turned out to’ be unsuitable for a jurisdiction in which the concept of welfare plays a large part. A primary function of the juvenile court, as of other criminal courts, is to decide whether an allegation of a specific offence or offences is established. (In “care or protection” or “beyond control” cases, of course, the court has to decide whether an allegation of the existence of specific circumstances is established.) The prosecutor selects the charge, and if it appears to the court that the wrong jssue has been selected, proceedings must be begun anew. A child may be charged with an offence which is not in itself particularly serious, but investigation of which uncovers some serious disturbance in the child or a family situation requiring a great deal of attention. But if the offence is not proved, appropriate action in the interests of the child may not be possible without | the institution of new proceedings on a different basis. If, as is usual, the offence is admitted or proved, the court has wide scope for enquiries into the child’s condition and background, and for selecting appropriate treat- ment; but the treatment ordered, especially if it involves removing the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32177744_0038.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
