Introduction
Delay in criminal justice administration, especially in the trials of juveniles, has been a subject of long debate. In adjudicating matters involving children in conflict with the law, international laws lay down specific requirements to which states should adhere to. Rule 20 of the Beijing Rules states that ‘each case shall from the outset be handled expeditiously without unnecessary delay.’ Further, Article 40 (2) (iii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that any child in conflict with the law shall ‘… have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority’. Sad to note, however, that in Sierra Leone, these international provisions are not being strictly followed. It is disheartening to note that juveniles are held in custody for a long time before any charge(s) are brought against them. That aside, when they are charged, they are most often held in detention together with their adult counterparts for periods longer than they would have served if they were found guilty as charged. This article therefore seeks to examine the reasons responsible for delay and its impact on juvenile justice in the country. It will conclude by proffering tenable recommendations that will help avoid delay in juvenile trials.
Who is a Juvenile?
There are several definitions put forward to explain the meaning of a juvenile. According to the ‘Beijing Rules’, a juvenile is defined as ‘a child or young person, who, under the respective legal systems, may be dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult’. There is however no age criterion here unlike the Convention on the Rights of the Child which defines a juvenile as ‘every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier’. Also, the Children and Young Persons Act (Chapter 44 of the Laws of Sierra Leone 1960), which govern the treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law generally apply to any one below the age of 17. It contains both welfare principles and punitive methods for reforming and rehabilitating child offenders. As a result, it lays stronger emphasis on welfare approach rather than punishment in the treatment of child offenders. Section 24 of same provides that no child shall be sentenced to imprisonment; instead convicted children should be given other forms of punishment such as remittance to an Approved School for a specific period of time or repatriation to the child’s district of origin.
Delay in Trials
There are several factors which contribute to delay in juvenile trials with its attendant impact on the administration of juvenile justice in Sierra Leone. However, a few of the notorious ones will be discussed.
Lack of transportation to convey juvenile offenders to court is amongst the greatest factors contributing to delay in the trials of juveniles. Many a time, court officials including magistrates, Justices of the Peace, and court clerks together with counsel will appear in court only to be told by the Officer-in Charge of juveniles from the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and children’s Affairs that the juvenile offenders cannot come to court because of lack of transportation. For example, on the 6th February 2008, juvenile offenders who were to make an appearance in court did not show up because, according to the Officer-in Charge, there was no vehicle to take juvenile offenders to court. This happens too often to the annoyance of not only members of the judiciary and the Bar, but also those of the public who have an interest in the case. The only option left with the presiding magistrate during such situation is to adjourn.
Another notable factor for delay is that the time allocated for juvenile trials is insufficient. In Freetown, for example, juvenile cases are heard only for about four hours per week. That is, from about 10:00am to 1:30pm on every Wednesday. Further compounding the problem is that there is only one juvenile court ( Magistrate Court no.3) in Freetown responsible for trials involving juvenile offenders. Considering the volume of juvenile cases to be heard, it is practically impossible for Magistrate Shyllon together with the two Justices of the Peace who arbitrate juvenile cases to fully exhaust all matters before them in such a limited time. As such, they (arbitrators) on several occasions have to adjourn those they cannot attend to the next sitting.
Also coupled with the above is the absence of Justices of the Peace to sit on juvenile matters. Since the Magistrate alone cannot adjudicate on matters involving juveniles, but does so together with two Justices of the Peace, any absence by any one invariably leads to an adjournment. This helps to slow down the trial progress. In addition, absence of complainants/victims/witnesses to help in the prosecution of juvenile offenders hinders the speedy trial of cases. When they are not in court, the prosecution usually asks for a date mostly to the chagrin of both the offenders and public. On the 13th February 2008, for instance, the Justices of the Peace were absent for reasons that were not explained in court. Such practice is gradually becoming frequent with juvenile offenders bearing the brunt of this malaise.
Lack of legal representation for offenders is another cause of delay in trying juveniles. In many cases, juvenile offenders are not represented even in alleged felonies. Since they (juvenile offenders) lack the technical expertise to adequately represent themselves, they are hardly treated seriously by court officials. Also, magistrates are more likely to hear cases in which offenders are represented. Thus, their cases are frivolously adjourned time and time again leaving them at the mercy of God and the Court.
Impact on Juvenile Justice
Delay in juvenile trials has appalling consequences and undermines the integrity of the justice system as a whole in the country. The snail-pace manner in which most juvenile cases are heard makes room for juvenile offenders to be falsely imprisoned and under inhumane conditions. This situation has brought in its wake a number of other problems that the juvenile justice sector has had to grapple with. Most Remand Homes in the country are badly in need of reforms. These include lack of security, insufficient food, poor sanitary facilities, aggression and violence among inmates, high rate of illness and other health threats and organized rehabilitation programs for inmates.
Also, there is increased likelihood of recidivism and re-offending as some juveniles are cramped in cells at the Maximum Pademba Road prison with their adult counterparts as there are no separate cells for first time offenders and hardened adult criminals. This practice contravenes section 85(2) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. The said section states that ‘young untried prisoners shall be kept separate from adults and shall in principle be detained in separate institutions’. Thus, juvenile offenders come out of detention centres as hardened criminals contrary to the aim of juvenile justice- reforming and rehabilitating of juveniles. An example of juveniles transforming themselves into hardened criminals was demonstrated in February this year when inmates at the Remand Home at Kingtom went on the rampage and escaped after their trials had been persistently adjourned due to the absence of the Justices of the Peace. The Officer-in-Charge, noted that majority of those that escaped from the centre were instigated by inmates brought in from the Pademba Road Maximum Prison.
Also, the Remand Home is made up of three dormitories for boys and two for girls and each is supposed to house ten inmates. This structuring of the detention centre has the unfortunate consequence of providing offenders with the opportunity to hatch dangerous plots such as taking a consensus decision to escape from the centre or to cause unusual alarm in a bid to attract the attention of the Officer-in-Charge. In addition, the centre lacks appropriate systems to creatively engage the minds of inmates such as training facilities for skills development. Most of the time inmates loiter about the centre with hardly anything creative to do. In the provinces, (with the exception of Bo) the situation is even worse as there are no separate detention facilities for juveniles. Juvenile offenders are detained with adults for very long periods of time mostly in unfavorable conditions. This directly contravenes the provision of Chapter 44 of the Laws of Sierra Leone of 1960 which states: ‘it shall be the duty of the Commission of police to make arrangements for preventing so far as practicable, a child or young person while in custody from associating with an adult, other than a relative, charged with an offence’
In addition these juveniles are not safe with their adult counterparts whilst in custody as they are very vulnerable. They can be sexually abused by adult detainees. Also, the lack of basic health care is a major challenge that offenders have to contend with. Many are exposed to dangerous diseases and other health hazards whilst in custody due to over crowding in cells.
Detention of juvenile offenders can also lead to distortion of their developmental potentialities. Many end their careers in detention as there are no forms of rehabilitation processes at present in the detention centres where they are kept.
Conclusion
From the foregoing, it is evident that delay negatively impacts juvenile justice with far reaching consequences on criminal justice administration in the country as a whole. In order to help remedy the situation, certain structures should be put in place.
Remand Homes should be provided vehicles as it is in the case of the Maximum Pademba Road prison with adequate logistics such as provision of fuel to be transporting offenders to and from the courtroom on a daily basis. This will help eradicate too many adjournments as a result of offenders not being in court.
There should be a separate court that is charged with the sole responsibility of trying juvenile offenders. This is so because juvenile cases are most often prejudiced against when dealt with along side adult matters. Alternatively, there should be an increase in the trial time and the number of days juvenile cases are heard in court. A minimum six hours of three days per week would help speed up the trial process considerably.
Furthermore, the code of conduct for judicial officers should be implemented to the letter. In cases where Justices of the Peace or magistrates do not proffer convincing reasons for not showing up in court, disciplinary measures should be taken against them. Also, they bench should issue out bench warrants for witnesses/complainants/victims who persistently fail to turn up for trials. Such a measure will definitely help in expediting the trial process.
There is the ever present need for legal representation to be provided for juvenile offenders whenever they are in conflict with the law. They justice system should not be bias against them simply because they are children. They have rights too, and those rights need to be equally protected as in the case of adult offenders.