.png)
JUVENILE COURTS
Juvenile courts are established pursuant to the Children and Young Persons Laws of the various States of the Federation. Young persons are persons who are less than 18 years of age when they committed the alleged offence. In terms of criminal responsibility:
Children below the age of 7 years are not criminally responsible for their act or omissions, which constitute the crime.
Children between the ages of 7 and 12 will only be held criminally responsible if it is established that they know that their act or omissions are wrong in law.
Children between the age of 13 and 18 are criminally responsible for their act or omissions.
Children fall between 1 to 14 years.
Young persons fall between 14 to 18 years.
In State v. Nwabueze (1980): the accused person caused the death of the deceased in the course of a fight. The accused was less than 12 years old. He was charged with murder. However, evidence adduced at the trial did not establish that the accused person knew that his act, which resulted in the death of the deceased, was wrong in law. The court discharged and acquitted the accused person.
Juvenile courts have jurisdiction over all cases involving children or young persons except in the following circumstances:
Section 8(2) of the CYPL provides that where a child or young person is charged with an offence, which is punishable by the death penalty, his trial shall be by a regular court.
Section 6(2) of the CYPL also provides that where a juvenile is jointly charged with an adult, the trial shall be by a regular court.
However in respect of offences that are punishable with death penalty, a juvenile court can conduct preliminary inquiry but cannot proceed to full trial if a prima facie case is established.
DETERMINATION OF AGE
Where the age of an accused person is essential for the purpose of conviction or is relevant in the determination of the nature of sentence to be passed on the accused person, a trial court is bound to conduct an inquiry as to the true age of an accused person.
In order to determine the age of an accused person, the court may:
Accept direct evidence of the age of an accused person such as birth certificate.
Accept oral evidence as to the age of the accused person by the parents or relations.
Order medical examination by a Medical Practitioner in a Government medical institution.
Medical examination is usually ordered where the court disbelieves the oral evidence of parents or relations or where there is conflicting evidence of the age of the accused person.
In the case of R. v. Oladimeji (1964), the accused person was charged for murder. At his trial, his father testified that he was less than 17 years old when he committed the alleged offence. He was convicted. On appeal against the conviction, the court appointed a Medical Commission to inquire into the accused person’s age. At the Commission, the parents maintained that the boy was 16 years when he allegedly committed the offence. However, the medical doctor who examined the boy 18 months after the offence was committed put his age at 25. The Supreme Court held that the doctor’s testimony was admissible and was rightly acted upon by the Commission.
Note that where there is clear evidence before the court as to the age of the accused person, the need to determine the age of the accused person no longer arises. See Guobadia v. The State (2004) 6 NWLR (PT. 869) at page 360.
FEATURES OF A JUVENILE COURT
Section 6(5) of the CYPL (Lagos State) provides that Juvenile Courts are not open to members of the public. The only persons allowed in Juvenile Courts are:
Parents and relations of juvenile, Counsel, Legal Practitioners and accredited members of the Press.
Section 6(6) of the CYPL prohibits the publication or disclosure of the identity of the juvenile at the trial except with the leave of the court. To publish the identity of the juvenile is an offence punishable by N100 fine.
At Juvenile Courts, regular court terms such as “sentenced”, “guilty”, “convicted”, “accused” et cetera are not used. Use offender instaed
Section 12 of the CYPL provides that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment once he can be suitably dealt with by any other punishment or committed to a remand home.
Even where a juvenile is in prison, he cannot be mixed with adult prisoners. This is in order to protect him from further corruption.
Section 368(3) of the CPL and Section 272 of the CPCL both provide that any person who had not attained the age of 17 years at the time the offence was allegedly committed cannot be sentenced to death. In Modupe v. The State (1988), the Supreme Court held that if the evidence before the court establishes that a juvenile was guilty of a capital offence, it would be wrong for any court not only to sentence him to death but also to even pronounce such a sentence. Note, however, that where such a juvenile is convicted of a capital offence instead of a death sentence, a sentence of life imprisonment would be imposed.
Any juvenile who is found to have committed a capital offence shall be held in lawful custody pending the pleasure of the Governor. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in GUOBADIA V. THE STATE (SUPRA).
Juvenile courts are established pursuant to the Children and Young Persons Laws of the various States of the Federation. Young persons are persons who are less than 18 years of age when they committed the alleged offence. In terms of criminal responsibility:
Children below the age of 7 years are not criminally responsible for their act or omissions, which constitute the crime.
Children between the ages of 7 and 12 will only be held criminally responsible if it is established that they know that their act or omissions are wrong in law.
Children between the age of 13 and 18 are criminally responsible for their act or omissions.
Children fall between 1 to 14 years.
Young persons fall between 14 to 18 years.
In State v. Nwabueze (1980): the accused person caused the death of the deceased in the course of a fight. The accused was less than 12 years old. He was charged with murder. However, evidence adduced at the trial did not establish that the accused person knew that his act, which resulted in the death of the deceased, was wrong in law. The court discharged and acquitted the accused person.
Juvenile courts have jurisdiction over all cases involving children or young persons except in the following circumstances:
Section 8(2) of the CYPL provides that where a child or young person is charged with an offence, which is punishable by the death penalty, his trial shall be by a regular court.
Section 6(2) of the CYPL also provides that where a juvenile is jointly charged with an adult, the trial shall be by a regular court.
However in respect of offences that are punishable with death penalty, a juvenile court can conduct preliminary inquiry but cannot proceed to full trial if a prima facie case is established.
DETERMINATION OF AGE
Where the age of an accused person is essential for the purpose of conviction or is relevant in the determination of the nature of sentence to be passed on the accused person, a trial court is bound to conduct an inquiry as to the true age of an accused person.
In order to determine the age of an accused person, the court may:
Accept direct evidence of the age of an accused person such as birth certificate.
Accept oral evidence as to the age of the accused person by the parents or relations.
Order medical examination by a Medical Practitioner in a Government medical institution.
Medical examination is usually ordered where the court disbelieves the oral evidence of parents or relations or where there is conflicting evidence of the age of the accused person.
In the case of R. v. Oladimeji (1964), the accused person was charged for murder. At his trial, his father testified that he was less than 17 years old when he committed the alleged offence. He was convicted. On appeal against the conviction, the court appointed a Medical Commission to inquire into the accused person’s age. At the Commission, the parents maintained that the boy was 16 years when he allegedly committed the offence. However, the medical doctor who examined the boy 18 months after the offence was committed put his age at 25. The Supreme Court held that the doctor’s testimony was admissible and was rightly acted upon by the Commission.
Note that where there is clear evidence before the court as to the age of the accused person, the need to determine the age of the accused person no longer arises. See Guobadia v. The State (2004) 6 NWLR (PT. 869) at page 360.
FEATURES OF A JUVENILE COURT
Section 6(5) of the CYPL (Lagos State) provides that Juvenile Courts are not open to members of the public. The only persons allowed in Juvenile Courts are:
Parents and relations of juvenile, Counsel, Legal Practitioners and accredited members of the Press.
Section 6(6) of the CYPL prohibits the publication or disclosure of the identity of the juvenile at the trial except with the leave of the court. To publish the identity of the juvenile is an offence punishable by N100 fine.
At Juvenile Courts, regular court terms such as “sentenced”, “guilty”, “convicted”, “accused” et cetera are not used. Use offender instaed
Section 12 of the CYPL provides that a juvenile cannot be sentenced to a term of imprisonment once he can be suitably dealt with by any other punishment or committed to a remand home.
Even where a juvenile is in prison, he cannot be mixed with adult prisoners. This is in order to protect him from further corruption.
Section 368(3) of the CPL and Section 272 of the CPCL both provide that any person who had not attained the age of 17 years at the time the offence was allegedly committed cannot be sentenced to death. In Modupe v. The State (1988), the Supreme Court held that if the evidence before the court establishes that a juvenile was guilty of a capital offence, it would be wrong for any court not only to sentence him to death but also to even pronounce such a sentence. Note, however, that where such a juvenile is convicted of a capital offence instead of a death sentence, a sentence of life imprisonment would be imposed.
Any juvenile who is found to have committed a capital offence shall be held in lawful custody pending the pleasure of the Governor. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in GUOBADIA V. THE STATE (SUPRA).
No comments:
Post a Comment